Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS)
(No. 2) BILL (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
(By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

FELTHAM STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT (LONGFORD
RIVER) BILL (By Order)

CUMBRIA BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 4 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Constitutional Reform

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will explain the weighted majority procedure he intends to introduce in his proposals for a devolved Government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his proposals for the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statment about his timetable for futher constitutional development in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish his proposals on the future governmental structure of Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: My talks with the Northern Ireland political parties are continuing. I have discussed various options

with them. I am convinced that there is now an overwhelming desire for a move towards greater politic al responsibility to be exercised within the Province. My task is to seek to narrow the area of difference between the parties so that a transfer of power is not only desirable but effective. In due course I hope to bring firm proposals before the House.

Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind what has been said about a weighted majority, does the Secretary of State see that in the context of a percentage of the total membership of any such Assembly, or as a percentage of those who would vote on any particular issue? Considering how difficult it would be to get a 70 per cent. consensus on any issue in this House or any other elected Assembly, is he not in danger of putting an instrumental barrier before those elected to an Assembly in Northern Ireland? Would it not, therefore, be better if he put the onus on the wreckers, who will not want to make any progress in such an Assembly, to get their troops into the lobby against progress rather than putting it on those who may be trying to get an agreement?

Mr. Prior: These are all matters that I am considering and, of course, one of those matters is the weighted majority. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's views on turning the onus round the other way. However, it is too early to draw any definite conclusions from the talks that I have had.

Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Official Unionist Party remains committed to the local exercise of power and supports the principle of devolution?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Molyneaux: Has the Secretary of State noticed that in my hon. Friend's original question he used the words "devolved Government" and not "devolved Assembly"? Is the Secretary of State aware that if disaster is to be avoided, any such Government must have real power from day one? Is he further aware that a powerless Assembly would merely create and generate friction between the political parties in Northern Ireland and inflict further damage on the economy of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: These are all matters for further discussion, but I am not of the opinion that it is necessary for all the powers of a devolved Government to be exercised from day one, although the power should be available from day one for transfer if the circumstances that the Government consider necessary are met.

Mr. Eggar: Whatever the details of my right hon. Friend's proposal, is not the lasting lesson of what has happened over the past 10 tragic years that no lasting solution is possible within Northern Ireland so long as there is direct rule? In itself, is that not a justification for my right hon. Friend's initiatives?

Mr. Prior: I am absolutely convinced that there is a growing desire in Northern Ireland for the establishment of responsible political institutions and that the long-term stability that they might provide can offer a sound basis for tackling Northern Ireland's many political, economic and security problems. I am anxious to build on that desire, as are the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have probably heard on five occasions the words


"overwhelming desire" and "growing desire" for an initiative in Northern Ireland. All that I can do, I think, is to counsel caution. Another failure would take us back behind the point where matters now stand. I would prefer to see the Secretary of State get things right rather than that he should think that he has to come to the House now with an initiative. It would be better if he waited until the time was absolutely right.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says. Anyone who embarks upon a programme of trying to devolve responsibility back to Northern Ireland is bound to find the going difficult and perhaps controversial. At the same time, I believe that the returning of political responsibility to the Province can do more than anything to help both the security situation and the serious economic plight that the people of Northern Ireland face.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that if he adopts the British practice of a weighted majority he will ensure that it is a fixed weighted majority and not a weighted majority with which he can tamper after the Assembly has voted in that particular strength? In that way the Assembly will know the criteria for success before the game starts.

Mr. Prior: This is obviously a matter to which I shall give great consideration. I am, however, encouraged by the sort of questions I have been asked today and by the interest that has been shown in the whole idea of a devolved Assembly and the weighted majority.

Higher Education Review Group

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the full report of the Northern Ireland higher education review group will be published.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: I expect that the final report of the higher education review group will be published in March.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the strength of the opposition that he has aroused within the minority community following the publication of his proposals to close the two teacher training colleges at St. Mary's and St. Joseph's? May I remind the hon. Gentleman that not even the previous Stormont regime was as discriminatory as those proposals? Will he give an assurance that nothing will be done to finalise the proposals until he has had further discussions with representatives of the community involved?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to the interim report of the review group, about which a question appears later on the Order Paper. I am aware of the strength of feeling that has been aroused, based, at least in part, I believe, on a misunderstanding. I am holding conversations and discussions with all the providers of teacher training in Northern Ireland. I hope, obviously, to be able to proceed by agreement.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman ignore the scurrilous campaign, particularly the chapel collection of signatures, including those of youngsters of 16 and under, organised by the Roman Catholic Church, which annoyed many members of that faith? Will the Government get rid of the last vestiges of sectarianism in higher education by

abolishing all three teacher training colleges and placing the education of potential teachers in the universities? Will the Government then move to end the religious apartheid maintained at public expense in schools in Ulster, which continues to divide the community.

Mr. Scott: I have listened to all responsible expressions of opinion on the subject. The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The overwhelming principle throughout the United Kingdom is that the wishes of parents should be respected in regard to the schooling of their children. The existence of Catholic education demands the provision of a suitable number of Catholic-trained teachers.

Mr. Fitt: Will the Minister accept that the Catholic Church has behind it centuries of experience of Catholic teaching? Is it not, therefore, highly unlikely that the Catholic Church has misunderstood any of the Minister's proposals? In fact, there is only too great an awareness of what the Government's proposals may mean. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that any attempt unduly to discriminate against the two colleges will provoke a war in Northern Ireland, which this or any other Government cannot win?

Mr. Scott: There is no intention to discriminate against these colleges. Let me give an example of the misunderstanding that has arisen. It has been widely reported that the Government intend to close the colleges. That was not suggested by Sir Henry Chilver and I have certainly not suggested it. The idea is that the colleges might amalgamate and move to a site common with the other teacher training college in Belfast. They would preserve their autonomy and their independence.

Harland and Wolff

Mr. Stephen Ro: Ross asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the prospects of fresh orders of ships and engines for Harland and Wolff.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office: Harland and Wolff is currently pursuing a number of possible ship and engine orders in extremely difficult market conditions. It remains my hope, however, that its efforts to secure new orders on acceptable terms will be successful.

Mr. Ross: I am conscious of the personal efforts of the Secretary of State, which I know are appreciated, to obtain orders for Harland and Wolff. Is he aware that relationships between Harland and Wolff and British Shipbuilders are not perhaps as close as one might wish? While British Shipbuilders seem to have a fairly full order book, is it not possible that some of those orders might be directed towards Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Butler: There is certainly a working relationship between British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff. I am not sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. The ships built by Harland and Wolff are essentially the larger, simple type, while those built by British Shipbuilders tend to be below the 64,000 tonnes mark. It would be relatively inefficient for Harland and Wolff to go for the same sort of ships as those for which British Shipbuilders has gained orders in the last year or two.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In view of the parlous position of those employed in the steel works and engine works of


Harland and Wolff, is the Minister yet in a position to say that the British Steel bulk carrier order might be placed with Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Butler: I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that negotiations are continuing. I am very well aware, as is my right hon. Friend, of the importance of Harland and Wolff winning this order in the near future.

Mr. McNamara: As the P and 0 order went to Finland, will the Minister explain why efforts were not made by his Department, on behalf of Harland and Wolff, to transfer work from British Shipbuilders so that the P and 0 ship could have been built in England and employment provided for Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Butler: I understand that Harland and Wolff felt it could not meet the delivery date required. Secondly, the balance of trades involved in the P and 0 vessel was out of tune with its present manning. Harland and Wolff made the offer to British Shipbuilders that it would carry out subcontract work if that were available. In the event, it was not.

Illegal Arms Supply

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the progress being made by the United States in halting the illegal supply of arms to the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Noethern Ireland(Mr.John Patten): Arms smuggled from the United States have been used frequently in terrorist attacks, including murders of members of the security forces and civilians. The United States Government are well aware of that and continue to take energetic measures to prevent such traffic. I hope that recent publicity will have brought the same point home to those who make financial contributions to terrorists' front organisations.

Mr. Alton: Has the Minister yet had a chance to consider the revelations made in the Granada Television "World in Action" programme screened last Monday? Will he take this opportunity to urge people in the Irish Catholic community in the United States to desist from giving funds to Noraid on the basis that much of this money is used for illegal arms smuggling and that these arms, in turn, are being used for the murder of innocent people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Patten: Yes. I am aware of the programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the New York district court has ruled that the so-called Noraid organisation is linked directly to the Provisional IRA and should be registered as such. I should like to take this opportunity to appeal from the Government Dispatch Box to everyone in the United States who is ever tempted to give financial or other aid to this organisation to realise what they are doing and to reflect perhaps on the distress that has been caused to the victims of those who have used guns purchased with that money? They should recognise that Noraid might be better called "terror aid" or "murder aid".

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend think it ironic that it is possible for the United States to supply this country with Trident but will not allow the sale of small arms and hand guns to be used by the RUC to combat the terrorism to which he refers?

Mr. Patten: I see the logic of my hon. Friend's question. The Government have made it clear to the Government of the United States that they utterly deplore the decision to suspend the licence to export weapons to the RUC. We would expect our allies and our friends to make available to us weapons for personal protection. I must also stress to the House, however, that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland is perfectly satisfied with the equipment that his men carry at the moment.

Union with Great Britain

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent his policy that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom until the people of Northern Ireland choose otherwise, also includes the intention to encourage the permanent union of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Mr. Prior: The Government are committed to the principle of self-determination as provided for in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The permanence of the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government were to say that they wanted Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom in perpetuity, that would be good news for the law abiding Unionist majority, Protestant and Catholic alike, would be bad news for the minority men of violence who believe that they are embarked on a war of attrition and that, with one last kick, a British Government will concede to them unification with the Irish Republic? If that is the case, will he state now that he wishes Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom in perpetuity?

Mr. Prior: This is a difficult and delicate subject. I shall say three things. First, consent and self-determination are the important factors. Secondly, we should seek to show that there are great advantages for all the people of Northern Ireland in remaining part of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, we have to recognise that there is a problem of identity for parts of the minority community, and if we can recognise that problem sensibly I believe that all the people of Northern Ireland will wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister agree with the verdict of history that it was the men of violence who took Ireland over a long time ago? That frame of mind is still perpetuated in certain Conservative Members. Does the Minister realise that, ultimately, there is bound to be a move and that the Labour Party's present policy is for the ultimate unity of Ireland? Those people, like the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who say the kind of things that he said are really saying that, no matter how the population of Northern Ireland vote, they want Northern Ireland to stay with Britain for all time.

Mr. Prior: I have nothing to add to my supplementary reply to my hon. Friend except to say that I believe that the sort of remarks that go backwards and forwards across the House about the history of the island of Ireland do much more harm than good.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for the Province.

Mr. Adam Butler: The total number of people registered as unemployed in Northern Ireland on 13 February was 112,209; 19.5 per cent. of all employees. The small fall which this figure represents in the numbers out of work is welcome but the underlying trend is still adverse and the immediate likelihood for an improvement in the situation is not good.
However, the prospects of new manufacturing investment have improved slightly, whilst the recently announced increases in public expenditure allocations are estimated to provide over 9,000 additional employment and training opportunities in 1982–83.
In the longer term, any significant improvement depends upon many factors, including the state of world trade and of the national economy, as well as the creation within Northern Ireland of conditions which would make it more attractive to new investors.

Mr. Parry: Are these not disgraceful figures? What positive plans do the Government have to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland, particularly among young people? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her policies are not helping in this regard?

Mr. Butler: The figures are unacceptable and I have said so before in the House. We can be a little encouraged by the improvement in the trend. Unemployment is not as bad as it has been in the past year. The hon. Gentleman refers particularly to the young unemployed. It was for them that we announced, and intend to introduce this autumn, the youth training programme with its comprehensive provision of training opportunities for all:16-year-olds and 17-year-olds without jobs. With regard to the Government's overall policy for Northern Ireland, our concern is evidenced by the £90 million of extra money provided beyond that planned for the coming financial year.

Mr. McCusker: Since these terrible figures are the result of 10 years of spending hundreds of millions of pounds, is it not time that we asked ourselves whether we are spending this money wisely?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman should not put one and one together and make three. He is correct in saying that large sums of money have been poured into Northern Ireland over the past decade and previously. However, the main reason for the present high level of unemployment is the world recession. With regard to his positive suggestion, yes, we have to continue to examine whether the limited resources available are being used as efficiently as possible. I shall always welcome any suggestions about that from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give further considered understanding to the question raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who asked whether it would not be a good thing if British Shipbuilders would transfer some of its work to Harland and Wolff—which would provide much needed employment in Northern Ireland—and if the P and 0 order had gone to British Shipbuilders? Will my hon. Friend give that matter his full consideration because

such a move would have guaranteed many hundreds of jobs at Harland and Wolff and would have been a great advantage to the Province?

Mr. Cryer: That is interfering in the private sector.

Mr. Butler: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has no shipbuilding capacity in his constituency. His suggestion would not be particularly welcome in Newcastle and other places around our coast where ships are built in British Shipbuilders' yards. I do not think that the intervention that he asked for would be justified, because it would be at the expense of jobs in British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Winterton: No.

Mr. Butler: The type of work for which Harland and Wolff is best suited is not the sort of work that British Shipbuilders has on order at the moment.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Minister agree that the figure of 112,000 is not the true figure of unemployment in Northern Ireland? The trade unions and those associated with them are only too well aware that thousands of people do not sign the unemployed register because they do not qualify for benefit. Therefore, the figure of 112,000 is the absolute minimum. Has the Minister been advised by his economic advisers in Northern Ireland that over the next five years the figure for unemployment there is liable to reach 130,000? Are there any positive steps that he can take to prevent that happening?

Mr. Butler: There are people who do not work but who are not registered as unemployed, but it has been accepted for many years that the only way to examine unemployment figures and compare previous experience is to take those who are registered. I am not prepared to react to the hon. Gentleman's forecast except to remind him that there were many gloomy forecasts for this time of year—125,000 unemployed or more was forecast by consultants. I am glad to say that, however bad the figures, they have fallen considerably short of that gloomy forecast.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that investment is one way of reducing unemployment, and since the Republic of Ireland seems to be more successful in attracting investment than Northern Ireland, is he satisfied that the investment incentives offered in the North are at least comparable with those in the South?

Mr. Butler: Investment incentives are not identical and there are limitations on what we can offer in Northern Ireland, particularly in the way of special tax incentives that would not necessarily be available in the United Kingdom. However, an independent survey suggested that the whole package of incentives available in Northern Ireland is among the best in Europe. We must take confidence from that. The main single reason why we do not have the investment that we need in Northern Ireland is the perception among would-be investors of the security problems and the general lack of stability in the Province.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister realise that what he has said today will be considered by the people of Northern Ireland to be pathetic platitudes? Everybody in Northern Ireland recognises that the base of the Northern Ireland economy is collapsing beyond repair. Even the CBI asked for more public money to be put into construction and new technology. To talk of £90 million put back in when the


Government took so much away previously is nonsense. When will the Government put effective public money in, even along the lines advocated by the Northern Ireland CBI?

Mr. Butler: I cannot see that £90 million, additional to what is already being spent, is in any way pathetic. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is much greater than in any other region in the United Kingdom. That is a reflection of the Government's concern about the difficulties.

Emergency Provisions Legislation

Mr. Andrew: F. Bennett asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up an inquiry into the the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

Mr. Prior: I have at present no plans to do so, but I shall give careful consideration to this possibility before the House next debates the renewal of the legislation.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that we must renew the legislation soon and that there is a grave danger of emergency provisions drifting into permanent provisions? Does he accept that there is a good case for setting up an inquiry to look particularly into the way in which some aspects of the legislation can be phased out?

Mr. Prior: I shall consider these matters ahead of the next renewal of the Act. However, the fact remains that violence and the terrorist capacity for violence are sufficiently high to require special measures, and I shall not give up those measures until violence is over and done with.

Mr. Soley: I am glad to know that at least the Government are thinking about the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is nine years since the Act came into force, that it was reviewed about two years after that, and that it was about another two and a half years before the amendments reached the statute book as a result of that review? In view of that time scale, surely there is a strong case for another review?

Mr. Prior: I know that the desire for an inquiry is shared by hon. Members, and that is why I am having an inquiry into the operation of the Act. We shall have to see how we get on.

Teacher Training

Mr. McNamar: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of teacher training in Northern Ireland.

Sir John: Biggs-Davison asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of teacher training colleges in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: Discussions are continuing with the major interests involved in teacher education provision in Northern Ireland. No final decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. McNamara: Can the Minister say when he next intends to meet the interests involved? Is he aware that in Catholic teacher training colleges there is grave concern because Northern Ireland Catholic teachers are not being accorded equal parity with teachers elsewhere in the

United Kingdom in terms of places at colleges and provision? Is he also aware that any idea that he may have of moving any of the sites out of West Belfast nearer to the university would have adverse effects on employment prospects in West Belfast—a matter that has caused considerable concern?

Mr. Scott: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I am in continuous touch with all the providers, both in correspondence and at meetings, and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said, as well as what they say to me, before reaching any final decisions.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has already decided to investigate higher as well as other education provision in Northern Ireland, for which it is responsible to this House? Does he accept as a general principle that higher education, including teacher education, in Northern Ireland should be seen as a whole, wherever the sites at which that higher education is provided happen to be?

Mr. Scott: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Is the Minister aware of the prominent part played by the New University of Ulster in providing non-sectarian teacher training for Roman Catholics., tend will he ensure that that university continues to operate in its present form?

Mr. Scott: It would be wrong for me to be drawn on what conclusions the review group may draw in its main report. We shall have to await the outcome.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Flanne: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the representatives of the new Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Canava: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will arrange to meet the Taoiseach to discuss matters of mutual concern.

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for a meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to meet the r ew Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Prior: I have no immediate plans to do so, but I look forward to continuing regular contact with Members of the Irish Government.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is in the interests of everyone concerned with Ireland and Northern Ireland that the:3e conversations, which we understand have so far proved useful, should continue? As these conversations will mean ultimate peace in Northern Ireland, will he assure us that he will not allow the sectarian voices that have been raised in the North against such discussions to hamper the continuation of this series of discussions?

Mr. Prior: I do not want to comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. In answer to the first 


part, it is perfectly right that consultations should continue on a variety of subjects between the Government of the United Kingdom and that of the Republic.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State arrange an early meeting with the Taoiseach, whoever that may be after the Dail meets on 9 March, to discuss the growing importance of cross-border co-operation between all the people of Ireland, irrespective of religious differences, and irrespective of whether they are in the North or the South? Will he also take the opportunity to remind the Taoiseach that the Labour Party's official policy is now to work towards a peaceful reunification of Ireland and that the next Labour Government will be expected to carry out that policy, instead of collaborating with the Tories to continue the tragic partition of Ireland, which has been the cause of much of the trouble to date?

Mr. Prior: No, I shall not take an opportunity to remind the Taoiseach of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Kilfedder: When the Secretary of State meets the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State—no doubt it will be Mr. Haughey, whose IRA sympathies are well known—will he deliver a blunt, thundering protest about the way in which the courts there can send Eireann citizens convicted of thievery and other criminal activities to the United Kingdom, but adamantly refuse to extradite Provisional IRA terrorists who are wanted for atrocities committed in the United Kingdom—murder and mutilation? Is it not high time that the Eireann Government were told to take action in this respect?

Mr. Prior: The Government of the Republic are well aware of the views of the United Kingdom Government on the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, I believe that the co-operation being shown by the Government of the Republic, and particularly by the Garda along the border, has resulted in a considerable improvement in the security situation, which the whole House will welcome.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State feel that there is now any point in Her Majesty's Government continuing to meet Dublin Prime Ministers who come and go at an alarming rate as a result of the instabillity created by the proportional representation system of voting? Would it not be a good idea to remove this debate from all parts of the British Isles?

Mr. Prior: It is not for me to comment on what happens to the leaders of other parties.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not good enough for a judge in the Irish Republic to give a person another chance by sending him to the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite unfair to British taxpayers for us to take in citizens of other countries so that they may enjoy the welfare benefits that the British taxpayers have paid for, when the persons who receive those benefits have not paid a penny towards them?

Mr. Prior: In my view, it was not a very wise decision.

Mr. Concannon: Whoever becomes the Taoiseach—and I have had discussions with all the persons involved—is the Secretary of State aware that none of the contenders thinks that the unification of Ireland can come about in any way other than peacefully and with the consent of the majority of the people in Northern

Ireland? Does the Secretary of State accept that they are fully aware of our position as an Opposition and that we shall work towards the peaceful unification of Ireland, with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and that they are perfectly happy to work towards that peaceful solution with us?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman has put the matter very well, and I hope that his right hon. and hon. Friends were listening to him.

Less-favoured Areas

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce a decision on the extension of the less-favoured areas.

Mr. Adam Butler: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is at present considering with his colleagues the case for extending the less-favoured areas throughout the United Kingdom, which might be submitted to the European Commission in the near future, and the implications for so doing.

Mr. Ross: Has it not taken a very long time to reach this stage? When can we expect the less-favoured areas to be extended, or is it that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot prise the money out of the Treasury to pay for the necessary extension?

Mr. Butler: I agree that it is taking a long time. We in Northern Ireland have had to wait for the rest of the United Kingdom to come to some arrangement. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that any extension will be accepted by the Commission, so it is essential that the best case should be prepared. It is taking longer than we expected.

Housing Executive (Rent Increases)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the proposed Northern Ireland Housing Executive's rent increases due in April.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr.David Mitchell): I have received representations from a number of bodies, including hon. Members, political parties, tenants' groups and district councils. In the main they have, naturally, been opposed to the increases due from 5 April 1982.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that the proposed increase of 22 per cent. is excessive, falling as it does on some of the poorest people in the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that it is wrong in principle that such a high increase should be used as a basis for financing further housing development?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not agree that it is excessive. It is less than the increase in either Scotland or England and Wales. Half the tenants will not pay the full increase, anyway. A man and wife with two children, with an income of up to £6,000 a year, paying an average rent of £15 a week, will receive a rebate. The total rent roll of the executive will be less than the amount spent on repairs, maintenance and modernisation by rehabilitation of the existing stock. After those payments have been met, there will be nothing left to cover management or loan charges.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that most of the Housing Executive's property in Northern


Ireland is in areas of high poverty and social deprivation, such as West Belfast? Does he accept that there is tremendous poverty in four of the worst estates, not only in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom—but in Europe—Ballymurphy, Divis Towers, Turf Lodge and Highfield? The tenants on those estates will be asked to pay a 22 per cent. increase so that more houses can be built in the more affluent areas of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that that is a terrible position?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that the increase in the rents will be spent on building more houses in the affluent areas of Northern Ireland. Half of the new building will be in Belfast. In any case, a large proportion of the tenants will receive aid in one form or another.

Mr. Soley: Has the Minister forgotten that, in 1980, there was an increase of about 26 per cent., in 1981 of 11 per cent. and now an increase is proposed of 22 per cent.? Does he realise that people have told me that it is not a case of going back to the 1930s but to the 1900s, when people on low income, without supplementary benefits, could not meet their bills?

Mr. Mitchell: Tenants with an income of up to £6,000 a year, with two children, and paying the average rent can receive assistance in the form of rebates on their housing costs. That covers the hon. Gentleman's point adequately.

Security

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 28 January two civilians have died in incidents relevant to this question. In one of them a young man died in a car joyriding incident, and in this case a soldier was seriously injured by the car. The other person who died, Mr. McKeague, was shot dead in his shop. The Irish National Liberation Army has claimed responsibility. A number of people have also been injured, several of them as a result of so-called punishment shootings by terrorist organisations. There were 17 terrorist bombing incidents, two of which caused widespread damage to two hotels. The House will also be aware that the collier "St. Bedan" was boarded and sunk by armed men in Lough Foyle on the night of 22 February. The Provisional IRA has since claimed responsibility.
In the same period the security forces neutralised 12 bombs and seized 43 weapons, and they have continued to make a large number of arrests and charges. Since 28 January, 85 terrorists have been charged, including seven with murder and 26 with attempted murder. The security forces are to be congratulated on their good work. Terrorists still pose a serious threat, but the security forces will keep up their efforts and, with the help of the people of Northern Ireland, I am confident that they will continue to make progress.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a restoration of confidence in the border region of Fermanagh and County Tyrone resulting mainly from the vigilance of the troops in forward positions on the frontier? Will he convey our congratulations and appreciation to the security forces, and will he encourage them to maintain their present high level of activity?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall convey that message. However, I do not wish anyone in the House or elsewhere to think that the struggle and the problems are over, because they are very real. We must have increased and eternal vigilance from the whole population if we are to keep on top of the position.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Secretary of State aware of the warning given yesterday by the RUC that the IRA is about to launch a new campaign of murder? Instead of waiting until an atrocity is committed, will the Secretary of State ensure that enough troops are brought into the Province now, including members of the SAS, to contend with such a threat from the evil men of the Provisional IRA?

Mr. Prior: The SAS is presently in Northern Ireland. If the GOC believes that he needs extra troops he has only to ask for them. However, the increasing strength of the RUC, the ability of the intelligence forces to gain information and the willingness of the public to co-operate with the police is perhaps the best defence against what is happening.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 February.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting with the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week in many Western capitals young Iranians went on hunger strike outside United Nations offices as a demonstration to draw attention to the barbarities of the Iranian regime? Is she aware that last year between 4,000 and 8,000 people were executed in Iran, many without trial, and that the figure included children and pregnant women? Is she aware that there are thousands of others in jail, again without trial? What action has she taken, or is proposing to take, at the United Nations and elsewhere to bring pressure to bear so that those appalling cruelties can be halted?

The Prime Minister: I agree that they are appalling cruelties. We have known about them and have seen them on television. Everyone finds them totally repugnant, but unfortunately it is not within our power, either separately or within the United Nations, to bring them to an end.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend, in order to encourage democratic institutions in Britain, consider and perhaps deplore the decision of the Trades Union Congress to expel any organisation that uses State aid to carry out secret ballots? Does she realise that the trade unions originally considered that they could not have secret ballots because they did not have sufficient funds, but now that they have the funds they have found another argument for not doing so?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is appalling and dogmatic to refuse State aid, knowing full


well that it would be a way of reaching a decision democratically. I hope that the trade unions are not afraid to do that.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady had an opportunity this morning to study what has happened on the Stock Exchange about the shares of Amersham International? Does she not think it a scandal that State assets should be put on the market in such a manner and sold at knock-down prices? Can she tell us who advised the Government to conduct the proceedings in that way?

The Prime Minister: It is easy in retrospect�ž[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]—to make a judgment about the price. The offer price of 142p was decided over two weeks ago. It was chosen on the firm advice of professional City advisers—[Hon. Members: "Who?"]—and was believed to be the highest price at which the whole company could successfully be offered. Some people have said that the shares should have been offered by tender. However, if that had been done, small investors, especially those who work for the company, would not have had a chance to take up the shares.

Mr. Foot: Is it not the case that something similar, if not quite so scandalous, happened with the sale of Cable and Wireless not very long ago? If the right hon. Lady's defence of the position is that it is easy to test such matters only in retrospect, what precautions will she take if she proceeds with the sale of BNOC? Will the advice come from the same quarter?

The Prime Minister: One takes the best possible professional advice—[Interruption.] It would have been possible to put the company on the market at a price at which it would not have sold. It is different selling the whole company from selling small numbers of shares. It is possible to consider tender. In future, we shall take professional advice and also consider tender. I emphasise yet again to the right hon. Gentleman that we are anxious for employees and small investors to have the chance to purchase shares. With the method that we have chosen they can do so, but with the tender method they could not do so.

Mr. Foot: Is it not the case that some of the right hon. Lady's advisers who gave her the wrong advice have made at least £1 million out of it?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not making any accusation in the House that he would not make outside.

Mr. Farr: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports in today's press about the possibility of the Argentine taking military action against the Falkland Islands? Can she assure the House and the country that the Falkland Islands will receive full support and military protection from Her Majesty's Government? Furthermore, can she assure the House that she will again consider withdrawing HMS "Endurance" from station and leaving her in the area until a suitable substitute can be provided?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have put the position to the people of the Falkland Islands and we have said that their future is wholly a matter for their decision. In the meantime, we shall do our level best to meet the decisions of the Falkland Islanders.

Dr. Owen: Has the Prime Minister had time to study the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social

Research, which states that unless policies are changed unemployment will steadily rise over the next year? As the Prime Minister has commented on the Budget outside the House, will she tell us that because there has been a fall in oil revenues she is excluding any stimulus to demand and output in the forthcoming Budget?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for details of the Budget. He will not have long to wait. The Budget is coming up soon. There are a number of economic forecasts. The Liverpool forecast is optimistic; the Cambridge forecast is pessimistic; the National Institute forecast foresees recovery this year and falling inflation.

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacKay: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the speech made yesterday in Glasgow by Mr. Roy Jenkins, in which he fully accepted the rights of parents to opt out of the State school system? Does she agree that that is a little at variance with the anti-private education policy of his colleague, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams)? Do not Mr. Jenkins' views have something to do with the fact that there are many private schools in Hillhead? Is not the alliance being all things to all men?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that shows that Mr. Jenkins' views correspond more closely with my views than with those of one of his colleagues. That shows the fragile nature of the coalition that calls itself the Social Democratic Party.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Has the Prime Minister had time to consider whether she is still a fan of Sir Freddie Laker? Is she prepared to transfer her support to the unfortunate passengers who, in the summer, will be obliged to pay a surcharge on their fares as a result of Sir Freddie Laker's irresponsible behaviour, and particularly to the creditors, many of whom will face ruin as a result of his depredations?

The Prime Minister: I do not need to reconsider. Freddie Laker, whatever his difficulties now, brought travel and the possibility of travel to many millions of people——

Mr. Cryer: What about Ken Livingstone?

The Prime Minister: Sir Freddie Laker brought down the fares of other airlines, which gave many of our constituents, including those of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), possibilities of travel and of seeing their families that they would never have had before.

Mr. Buck: Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity to express today the concern that we all feel she must share with many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government find it necessary to sell one of the most powerful ships in the Royal Navy, the "Invincible"? Does she agree that, apart from the money, the only agreeable feature about the sale is that the ship is to go to such a firm, strong and staunch Commonwealth ally as Australia?

The Prime Minister: Naturally I know my hon. and learned Friend's concern. We always wish to have more defence ships and equipment than we can afford. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the decision that we could keep only two of those ships. Therefore, we have decided to try to sell the third to a close and staunch ally. Because we were going to take that decision, my right hon. Friend was able to place more shipping orders than would otherwise have been possible. This year he has placed orders for £410 million worth of new warships with British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Prime Minister aware that at this moment there is a lobby of young people taking part in the youth opportunities programme and that they are gravely dissatisfied? Is she also aware that on ITV news at lunchtime the Secretary of State for Employment—it should be "Unemployment"—in his usual callous way, deplored the fact that these desperate young people had come down here at all and attributed their initiative to other people having stirred them up? Does she agree that unless the Government's policies are changed radically—some Members of her own party want that to happen—there will be masses more unemployment and more young people being used as cheap labour in YOP instead of being given proper jobs?

The Prime Minister: Those people are not being used as cheap labour. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, they are being given the opportunity of some training and experience that otherwise they would not get. I note how critical the hon. Gentleman is of the scheme that was started by his own Government and which is being continued by this Government.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent council meeting in Southampton seven Conservative councillors were barred from voting on a planning decision for a private hospital because they were members of the British United Provident Association? Is that not a dangerous precedent? Should not our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hold an inquiry into the whole sordid mess?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say whether that would come under the heading of having an interest, but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I emphasise that people have the right to private medicine as much as they have the right to private education——

Mr. Cryer: If they have the money.

The Prime Minister: Those people should not be denied the possibility of spending their money on education and health in preference to spending it on cigarettes, alcohol and various other things.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her speech to engineering employers about the Budget caused much justified alarm and the feeling that there would be no change in the present disastrous economic policies? Does the right hon. Lady know that in May 1979 unemployment in the West Midlands was 5 per cent., Ind that now it is over 15 per cent.? How can she explain the tragedy and devastation that has come to the region except by saying that it has been brought about by her economic policies?

The Prime Minister: There are a number of reasons. First, there has been considerable overmanning in industry, as I said in that speech. The hidden unemployment from industry is now on the unemployment register. However, industries can now compete. Secondly, a great deal of unemployment has been caused by the world recession. There are 10 million unemployed throughout Europe. Thirdly, due to the Government's policies, management has been given the responsibility and authority to manage and to obtain orders. The export performance is excellent.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read press reports emanating from the West Country about a letter purporting to be written on behalf of, and indeed under the letterhead of, the leader of the Liberal Party—not inappropriately, by a gentleman named Mr. Mole—to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman favours the decriminalisation of cannabis? Will she confirm that such an idea has, and will continue to have, no part in Government policy?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the views of the leader of the Liberal Party, but I do not for one moment favour the decriminalisation of cannabis.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), may I draw attention to an error in today's Order Paper, on which the name of the personal assistant to the leader of the Liberal Party appears as Mr. Stuart Noble, whereas my hon. Friend referred to a Mr. Mole? Can we please see that these things are got right?

Mr. Speaker: I shall do my best.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: (Mr.Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for the next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I MARCH—Remaining stages of the Travel Concessions (London) Bill.
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders on Appropriation and Limitation Amendment.
Proceedings on the Agricultural Training Board Bill (Lords) and on the Industrial Training Bill (Lords), which are Consolidation Measures.
TUESDAY 2 MARCH—Supply (14th Allotted Day): Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on the adverse effect on the consumer of the deliberate Government policy to increase gas prices by 23 per cent. and afterwards a debate on the situation in Central America. Both debates will arise on Opposition Motions.
The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes and Supplementary Estimates.
WEDNESDAY 3 MARCH—Further progress in Committee on the Canada Bill.
THURSDAY 4 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motions on the Mineworkers' Pensions Scheme and on the Redundant Mineworkers Concessionary Coal Orders.
Motion on the Report of the Court of Auditors of the European Community for 1980, Documents 11456/81 and C344.
FRIDAY 5 MARCH—Private Members' Motions MONDAY 8 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Canada Bill.
For the debate on Court of Auditors' report: EEC document 11456/81.
Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: Ninth report, Session 1981–82, HC 21–ix, 1981–82, para. 3.

Mr. Foot: I wish to put three matters to the right hon. Gentleman. He will have heard the exchanges a few moments ago on the sale of Amersham International shares. It would have been of advantage to the country if we had had the debate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) requested earlier this week. In the light of what has occurred and what the Opposition regard as a gross injury to the national credit and to the way in which we try to preserve taxpayers' money, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on these matters so that we may ensure that the same thing does not happen again, especially in relation to such a great national asset as the British National Oil Corporation?
Secondly, as I have asked before, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider offering Government time to discuss Government training schemes which we regard as gravely deficient in many respects? Clearly, this is a matter of major significance for the future of the country. Will he therefore provide time for such debates?
Thirdly, there is the more immediate question of nurses' pay. In the current negotiations in the Whitley council, the nurses have so far received nothing that could be described as an offer, although other sections of the

community have received offers. Promises were given that the nurses would be treated no less favourably than some other groups in the community. The matter should therefore be debated in the House. The right hon. Gentleman may prefer to keep the matter entirely within the Whitley council, but in the light of public discussion on nurses' pay, will he arrange a debate on the matter?

Mr. Pym: On the sale of Amersham International shares, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may wish to debate the matter. He has opportunities to cause such a debate to be held if he so wishes, but I have no Government time available for a debate in the immediate future.
I acknowledge the representations that the right hon. Gentleman has made about training schemes, but I should point out that in the week after next my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will introduce his Budget, after which there will be a substantial debate. I should have thought that training schemes would be relevant to my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, and some right hon. and hon. Members may wish to take advantage of that opportunity.
I do not think that it is advantageous or wise for the House to debate nurses' pay while negotiations are in progress. I realise that there is great interest in the negotiations, but I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to find time for a debate. I am afraid that the matter must remain there for the time being.

Mr. Churchill: Turning from the sale of Amersham International to that of HMS "Invincible", has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 253 in my name calling for reconsideration of the sale?
[That this House, gravely concerned at the rapidly escalating surface, submarine and air threat to NATO maritime forces in the North Atlantic and Indian Oceans, views with alarm Her Majesty's Government's proposed sale of Her Majesty's Ship `Invincible', the newest and most potent of the Royal Navy's surface ships; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to provide such additional resources to the Defence Vote as may be required to make the sale unnecessary.]
Will my right hon. Friend provide Government time to debate that motion?

Mr. Pym: I agree that it is an important decision. It was implied by the decision taken by my right hon. Friend and announced in the House many months ago. As my hon. Friend will know, although the sale has been negotiated, HMS Invincible remains in the service of the Royal Navy for the time being. The time of year when defence debates take place, both on the White Paper and subsequently on the Services, is approaching. I doubt whether there will be an opportunity to debate the matter before then. My hon. Friend may find other ways in which it can be raised, but I do not think that I could find an additional day to debate defence, at any rate for the present. However, it will not be long before the House has the opportunity to debate these very important matters.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House undertake that at the start of the debate on El Salvador there will be a ministerial statement making it clear how Britain, unlike any other


member of the European Community, came to suggest sending observers to these phoney elections and then changed its mind?
Secondly, will he undertake that, when the Cabinet have finished their discussions on Trident, a full statement will be made on the effect of the decision on the rest of the public expenditure budget, including the budget for conventional defence?

Mr. Pym: On the first point, the Opposition will start the debate on El Salvador next Tuesday, but there will be a ministerial intervention. I have no doubt that in the course of that intervention comments will be made on the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
On the second point—yes, there will be a statement in due course when a further decision about Trident is taken. In the ensuing discussion, if not in the statement itself, I am sure that there will be questions and answers about the cost and what its implications might be.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to make a statement about what representations the Government have made to the Republic of Ireland about the case of John Healey, a convicted criminal who was released by the magistrates concerned on the basis that he and his family came to the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an insult to the British people and an abuse of the Welfare State? What representations have been made to the Government of the Republic?

Mr. Pym: I would not wish to comment on my hon. Friend's remarks about the decision, but I have already discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and no doubt my hon. Friend will raise it with him, too. At any rate, I shall convey his representations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? To make a mistake once, in relation to Cable and Wireless, is one thing. To make a mistake twice, in the case of British Aerospace, is another. But to make a mistake three times, in the case of Amersham International, is absolutely disastrous. We have a Government of business men flogging the nation's assets on an underpriced basis, on some occasions underwritten by their merchant bank advisers. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that nothing like this occurs in the sale of BNOC to private enterprise, which in any case should not happen at all?

Mr. Pym: I have no Government time to make available for that debate next week, but the Opposition could have chosen that subject had they wished to do so.

Mr.Neil Thorne: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 232 relating to public concern about the present jury service system?
[That this House believes that those who have been convicted of an indictable offence, other than a traffic offence, for which a term of imprisonment is an option open to the sentencing judge, should be ineligible for jury service for a period of 10 years.]
Has my right hon. Friend any plans for a debate on this matter in the immediate future or has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary other plans for dealing with the matter?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir. I have no plans for a debate, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering whether any alteration should be made.

Mr. Greville Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the answer that was given to me earlier this week by the Secretary of State for Employment to the effect that the failure rate in unfair dismissal cases has now reached 74 per cent? Given the weakening of protection for individual workers—as a result of that trend and the doubling of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal—and the fact that that is happening at a time when the individual worker most needs help, may we have a debate?

Mr. Pym: Not in the near future.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although certain leaks have been repaired, there is dampness in some parts of the Chamber? Would not a debate on plumbing be helpful?

Mr. Pym: I am sure that my hon. Friend's speech on that subject would be particularly revealing.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence through the usual channels so that next week's debate on Central American affairs can include out relations with southern American Governments? When the British Government are entering into negotiations with the Argentine Government—with no conditions on our side—and when some members of their Government and the military are apparently preparing for a millitary invasion of the British Falkland Islands, is it not ludicrous that we should concentrate our attention on Central American affairs, where we have some influence but only a little, while neglecting our interests in the southern Atlantic as a whole?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is asking for a debate on a separate subject in which several hon. Members are interested. Another occasion will have to be found for that.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, whoever provides the time, it would be useful to have a debate on the selling of Amersham International's shares? It would make a change for the House—it would certainly be beneficial to Conservative Members—to discuss the sale of shares in a public concern that people want to buy, rather than—as rSo often happens—discussing nationalised industries that make total losses and whose shares we cannot sell?

Mr. Pym: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I can make no time available to the House at the moment for that purpose.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the housing crisis facing the nation? Most of the Government's public expenditure cuts have been in housing, where they have created a crisis of 1945 proportions. We have growing waiting lists and the lowest number of council housing starts since 1945. If the Government do not want to provide time for their policies to be criticised, surely they might provide time for us to point out that the policies pursued by Liberal and SDP claims are no different from the housing policies pursued by Conservative councils.

Mr. Pym: I do my best to make time available for debates in which the House is particularly interested, but


I do not have a day available on which I can arrange that debate in the foreseeable future. It is a subject which the Opposition could use to make whatever criticism they wish of the Government's policy. Our housing policy is nothing like as bad as the hon. Gentleman claims. However, if the Opposition wish to take one of their days for a debate on that subject, they are welcome to do so.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Given that the House is somtimes alleged to represent a cross-section of the public, would it not be reasonable for the Leader of the House to take into account—if and when a debate on Amersham International is granted—the fact that some hon. Members may have participated in that sale and could be held to have had a pecuniary interest? Perhaps that could be borne in mind through you, Mr. Speaker, before the debate starts.

Mr. Pym: In accordance with our convention, the hon. Members concerned—if there were any—would declare their interest at the time.

Mr. Christopher Price: May we have at least a statement before Easter on how the Government now intend to discharge their international responsibilities, given that the European Court in Strasbourg has made the very wise and intelligent decision to ban corporal punishment on children when it is against the wishes of their parents?

Mr. Pym: I shall consider that point.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on the multiple deprivation in inner Liverpool? The recent problems at St. Saviour's school in Liverpool are only the tip of an iceberg. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which shows that four of the inner city wards in Liverpool are among the most deprived in Western Europe? Do there have to be more riots before the Government will act?

Mr. Pym: All hon. Members are extremely concerned by the recent events at a school in Toxteth. Hon. Members have had several opportunities to debate kindred matters, such as law and order and the Scarman report. I was not thinking of providing another debate on that subject in the near future, but I agree that the subject is very important and understand that hon. Members naturally have a great interest in it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If questions are brief, I shall call the five hon. Members who have been standing in their places. We shall then move to the debate on Welsh affairs.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Given the Home Office report on incidents at Wormwood Scrubs prison, do the Government intend to hold a debate as soon as possible.

Mr. Pym: We do not intend to do so in the near future. However, that certainly has to be considered.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Has the Leader of the House seen the report in yesterday's edition of The Guardian, that secret guidelines allow police bugging almost with impunity and certainly without a Home Office warrant? Will the Home Secretary make a statement on

that and may we also have, if possible, time for a debate? I am sure that the Leader of the House would condemn out of hand an eastern European dictatorship whose police secretly bugged private citizens without any democratic accountability. Nevertheless, that appears to happen under a Tory Government. May we please have a statement?

Mr. Pym: I do not know that a statement would be appropriate, but I shall certainly convey those representations to the Home Secretary. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, after the Scarman report, my right hon. Friend was very forthcoming about the handling of complaints against the police.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's refusal to allow time for a debate on housing leads me to the inevitable conclusion that they believe that their housing record is indefensible? Is it not important to discuss the housing plight of many of our fellow citizens who cannot find accommodation because council house building is at the lowest point since the 1920s? Is not the matter urgent, even to the Government?

Mr. Pym: When we debate housing in due course—probably in Opposition time—the hon. Gentleman will find that he has been led to the wrong conclusion.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week on early-day motions Nos. 276 and 277?
[That this House deplores the revised provisional proposals of the Boundary Commission for Scotland affecting Central Region and notes that the amendments to the original reasonable proposals emerged from a public inquiry conducted by Sheriff Principal R. R. Taylor who stood three times as a Tory Parliamentary candidate and is former Chairman of the Central and Southern Region of the Scottish Conservative Association; notes that, despite Rule 4 of Schedule 2 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, as amended, which states that the Boundary Commission so far as is practicable shall have regard to the boundaries of local authority areas, Sheriff Principal Taylor accepted the Tory Party proposal to create the only new Scottish constituency to consist of one entire local authority district plus parts of two other local authority districts and that the same constituency will be the only mainland constituency in Scotland which will be split into two separate parts divided by a major stretch of water, the River Forth, in such a way that constituents will be unable to travel by land from one part of the constituency to another without having to travel through another constituency; condemns these proposals as being unnecessarily divisive and destructive of long-standing community links and is forced to conclude that they are a blatant act of gerrymandering on the part of the Tory Establishment in an attempt to create a winnable Tory seat; and demands that Sheriff Principal Taylor be dismissed and that the Boundary Commission reject his proposals forthwith or order a new public inquiry to be held with an indepedent reporter.
That this House deplores the fact that Sheriff Principal R. R. Taylor, who stood three times as a Tory Parliamentary candidate and is former chairman of the Central and Southern Region of the Scottish Conservative Association, was appointed reporter to a public inquiry


into parliamentary constituencies in the Central Region of Scotland by the Tory Secretary of State for Scotland who himself lives in the area concerned.]
They describe the deplorable fact that a man who unsuccessfully tried three times to get elected as a Tory Member of Parliament is now trying to gerrymander parliamentary constituency boundaries in an effort to create a winnable Tory seat? Is it not absolutely outrageous that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who lives in the area, should appoint one of his Tory pals to do such a job? Will the Government take immediate steps to dismiss Sheriff Taylor, who seems to have been involved in some Tory old-boy network conspiracy?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate. The person referred to in the early-day motions was a candidate in the 1950s and 1960s and accordingly considered that he could not properly act as an assistant commissioner in relation to the Tayside region. The objections were not considered to apply to any inquiry relating to Central and Fife regions and the Secretary of State agreed to his appointment for those regions. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the candidature was some time ago. It is a mistake to exaggerate.

Welsh Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

The Secretary of State for Wales(Mr.Nicholas Edwards): The fourth Welsh day debate of this Parliament, back to its traditional time close to St. David's day, continues a long tradition that was interrupted only during those years when the Labour Government were chasing the unwanted elephant of constitutional change. The more modest constitutional innovation introduced in this Parliament has been the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The year has seen a change of Chairman. The year has also seen the publication of the Committee's admirably comprehensive and useful report on Welsh broadcasting, the last legacy of the retiring Chairman; and the opening of its inquiry into the water industry, as well as its long-running examination of the organisation of the Welsh Office. Ahead lies a major examination of the immensely important topic of the impact of EEC membership on Wales. It is already clear that the Committee has a major role to play in extracting evidence about what is going on in the Principality and in presenting information to this House and to the people of Wales.
Throughout the year the rising tide of unemployment has been of central concern to every Member. At the latest count the total number out of work in Wales stood at 174,878. The seasonally adjusted total of 162,600 represented 15 per cent. of the labour force. Hon. Members, in recent Welsh questions, have understandably drawn particular attention to two groups: the 50,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year, and the school leavers and out of work young people.
The social consequences of unemployment on this scale are very severe, and I do not in any way seek to understate the extent of the problem, which is the more serious because it has not just been a short-term consequence of recession, but a long-term cancer growing steadily and remorselessly under successive Governments. Unemployment increased from 38,000 in February 1974 to a peak of 101,000 under the Labour Government, and in February 1979 the total of nearly 92,000 was the highest February total up to that date. In that period, February 1974 to February 1979, it had increased by 139 per cent. Since then it has increased by a further 80 per cent.
Over a much longer period the accelerating cycle of inflation and unemployment has been the central feature of the British economy. The two great oil price revolutions of the last decade, with their immense impact on the world economy, have had particularly devastating consequences in this country because of our underlying lack of competitiveness, our unwillingness to make necessary changes, and our determination as a nation to pay ourselves far more than output could justify. The Opposition have every right to express their deep anxiety about these events, but their criticisms would carry greater weight if they were more ready to identify these underlying realities, to acknowledge their own responsibility, and to offer policies that provided the prospect o f a real return to competitiveness, rather than a worthless boost to the old destructive reflationary cycle.
There are two aspects of the situation that offer some real grounds for optimism. The first is that, despite the fact that we have suffered a particularly large share of the


rundown of the steel industry, the relative position of Wales within the United Kingdom economy has held up well. Dreadful though the increase in unemployment has been, the deterioration has not been as sharp as in the United Kingdom as a whole. Excluding the metal manufacturing sector, where a very dramatic but once-for-all reduction in employment occurred, the decline in the number employed has been less than in the rest of the country. So often in the past the relative position of Wales, already bad, has grown worse during a recession. This time it has not done so, and later in my speech I shall explain why I believe we are poised to make a significant improvement in the relative position as we move out of recession.
The second aspect that gives grounds for optimism is that there are now signs of the move from recession. Despite the disruptions caused by weather and strikes over the last couple of months, there are clear indications of an upturn in industrial production since the second quarter of last year. Particularly encouraging is the increase in new engineering orders, which are up 18 per cent. since the second half of 1980. This upturn is export-led with export orders up 21 per cent. There has been an improvement of 10 per cent. in the country's cost competitiveness over the last 12 months, and productivity measured as output per head also rose by 10 per cent. between the end of 1980 and the third quarter of 1981.
Perhaps the most dramatic and significant change of all is in unit labour costs. Between 1975 and 1980 they doubled, while in the United States they rose by only one-third, in Germany by one-sixth and in Japan by nothing at all. In 1980 alone they soared by 23 per cent. in this country, a rate higher than in any other major industrial nation. In 1981 they have risen by 2 per cent., a rate of increase slower than in any other major industrial nation. Of course, we have not yet regained the ground lost between 1976 and 1980, let alone everything thrown away in the years before, but we have started along the road to recovery.

Mr. Tom Ellis: As we are debating Welsh affairs, and not United Kingdom affairs, will the Secretary of State confirm that in recent years the GDP per person employed in Wales has consistently been higher than the United Kingdom average?

Mr. Edwards: I hesitate to confirm a statistic thrown at me across the Floor of the House. In regard to the increase in production during the year, the figures for Wales are better than for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is further modest encouragement.
The political correspondent of the Western Mail recently commented that in the last two and a half years the Welsh Office
has been popping up with initiatives in a way associated with radical reforming governments".
It started, he said, with my Llanrwst speech giving 
a totally new priority
to the Welsh language and, as he reminded his readers, I 
had not just nudged up the amount of cash available
but had trebled it.
He went on to comment on the 13 per cent. reduction in the number of staff in the Welsh Office, the introduction of a separate Welsh rate support grant system for Wales,

changes in the organisation of the Health Service, and the reorganisation of the Welsh water authority. All this, he said,
boils down to a remarkable act of self-assertion by the Welsh Office".
Whether or not that is a proper description, what undoubtedly is true is that we have been living through a period of radical change in which the Welsh Office has been playing its full part, and that last year saw a transformation of reputation, infrastructure and organisation of very major significance. I intend to speak about each of those in turn.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Would the Secretary of State care to add the granting of planning permissions to the initiatives that he has taken at the Welsh Office?

Mr. Edwards: We have taken a great deal of action to speed up the way in which these matters are dealt with. That is of considerable importance for the economic development that we are discussing.
The reputation of Wales is very precious. It is not just precious because of our natural pride and loyalty. It is doubly precious because upon it depends our ability to transform our economic prospects and create the jobs that we so desperately need. This time last year our concern about it was a central issue in our debate and I commented that the false image was "the greatest single obstacle" that we faced to industrial recovery. I have seen it as a central task to show the world what is the reality and to publicise the immensely exciting and promising things that are happening in Wales. Surely everyone taking part in this debate today can unite and agree on one thing—that Wales is a good place in which to live and work. Too often we leave it to outsiders to tell the story for us.
Last night I had dinner with Dick Petritz and a number of his colleagues from Inmos. He has become our warmest advocate. He has found it possible, he tells me, to recruit a labour force in Wales of the highest quality, every bit as good as his team in Colorado Springs. The new plant in Newport is being completed ahead of schedule and under budget, and will be in production this year.
It was Dick Petritz who first converted me to the reality of the high technology corridor along the spine of the M4 and the 125 train service from London airport across Southern England and into South Wales, and it has been he who has, again and again, proclaimed to his contacts in advanced technology in the United States the belief that a major part of the development in that corridor will take place at the Welsh end of it. It seems to me sad that that reality is more obvious to the leaders of industry outside Britain than it appears to be to many involved in decision making in this country.
A few weeks ago The Economist, in an article on industrial development in the corridor, gave the impression that it petered out at the Severn bridge. The bridge may seem a barrier to writers in The Economist, but to investors overseas it apparently represents an opening to an ideal place for their operations.
In the corresponding debate last year I confirmed the news that Mitel, the Canadian company that is a leader in telecommunications, was to build its main European manufacturing plant in Gwent. It had the choice of the world and it chose Wales. It originally announced a requirement for 250,000 sq ft to provide 1,700 jobs by


early 1986. Since then it has increased the plant to 295,000 sq ft to be completed this August and to provide 2,000 jobs. It talks of further expansion plans in future.
In the course of the year Yuasa Batteries, a Japanese company that I first visited in Tokyo a year ago tomorrow, signed a contract to establish a major plant in Blaenau Gwent. Mr. Yuasa, the president, told me in Tokyo that before coming to this decision his company had made a survey of many locations in European countries and had come to the conclusion that productivity and the quality of labour was likely to be highest in the place that it had chosen. It is the eighth Japanese company to reach the same conclusion.
Further west, a leading Spanish contractor, Dragados, is in the course of submitting an application for financial assistance towards a major construction project in Pembroke Dock. Two weeks ago the Chemical Bank, the sixth largest of the 14,000 or so banks in the United States, made the immensely important announcement that, having studied over 20 different locations, it had decided to move the whole of its backroom operation with 350 jobs to Cardiff, the first major international financial institution to take such a decision. The vice-president and deputy general manager, Mr. Howell, explaining the decision, said that the following were the crucial factors: good communications including air backup; distance from London; the relative cost of operations; the large population base with available skills; the university with which it hopes to forge strong links; the attraction of Cardiff as a place to live and work, and of course Government grants and the assistance and welcome it received from the Welsh Office and local government.
In North Wales, BICC Corning—in fibre optics—and Intermagnetics—manufacturing video equipment—are among other concerns that have decided to start operations in Clwyd. Within days the Intermagnetics group informed us of its intention to proceed with a second project in the area.
The point that I am making is that hard-headed business men coming to Europe without prejudices and preconceptions are increasingly choosing Wales as an ideal location for their operations. It is not only the international companies that have grounds for recognising what is on offer. The story of Llanwern and Port Talbot, with their dramatic improvements in productivity, which have made them about the most competitive steel plants in Europe and encouraged the chairman of BSC to speak recently of the need for further investment, has become a striking example to the whole of British industry. Others have matched their performance. Cam Gears, for example, has shown the ability to compete and win orders in the cutthroat motor manufacturing market both here and in the United States.
It would be absurd to pretend that all is perfect; even in terms of performance and competitiveness there are blots here, as elsewhere. In my constituency we have seen major delays and cost overruns on the Cracker project at Texaco, though it is welcome news indeed that despite these problems the company is to go ahead with a further £20 million contract constructing a Visbreaker. We have witnessed the sad story of Dunlop Semtex; and management and unions have been working to introduce a sense of reality at Borg Warner's plant in Kenfig. Others of course have been struggling because of market conditions despite the sterling efforts of management and workers.
Having said all that, I believe that 1981 has been a year in which there has been a dramatic change for the better in the reputation of Wales as an industrial location. When I go abroad, I tell those that I meet to speak to companies, British and foreign, that have set up plants and offices in Wales in recent years, because I know that they are more generous in their praise than I or my colleagues would ever dare to be. The Welsh Development Agency has obtained a striking and perhaps unexpected response with an advertisement that has caught the attention of television viewers throughout Britain. It is bringing home to a wider audience the successes that we have too often hidden in the past.
The change in reputation has been more than matched by the change in infrastructure. The past year has seen an extraordinary record of building. People call for capital projects. I hope that they realise that we are in the middle of what is probably the biggest capital programme ever undertaken by the Government in Wales. Let me start with the WDA's remarkable record of factory building. In the present financial year the agency expects to complete over 21/2 million sq ft of new factory space, which is more than the total space completed in the first four years of the agency's existence. In its next financial year it expects to complete another 11/2 million sq ft of advance factory space.
A year ago I think that there was some scepticism about the ability of the agency to respond quickly enough to the need for new factory space in the steel areas. Since November 1979, when I announced that about £15 million would be available over three to four years for site development in the Shotton area, the WDA has completed well over 700,000 sq ft of advance factories and it expects to complete another 250,000 sq ft there in the coming year.
In February 1980 I announced that we would be making an additional £48 million available for the steel areas of Llanwern and Port Talbot, and in the present financial year over 1 million sq ft will be completed in those programmes. By the end of the coming year that figure will have risen to about 1-8 million sq ft, with nearly 140 units for Llanwern and over 150 for Port Talbot with another 50 or so completed by the Cwmbran Development Corporation at Llantarnam.
During the last Welsh Question Time I announced the WDA's sixth factory building programme, in which it will build well over 300,000 sq ft outside the steel closure areas, concentrated in Mid-Glamorgan and in parts of Dyfed, Gwynedd and Clwyd. At the end of January the WDA had 344 factories amounting to some 2.7 million sq ft available for letting with another 218 factories covering just over 1.2 million sq ft under construction.
The really striking fact is that against that background—a factory building programme on an entirely different scale from anything attempted before—we have, despite the severity of the recession, been strikingly successful in allocating factory space. The challenge remains formidable, but I do not think that a year ago I should have dared to forecast that we would allocate nearly 300 factories in 1981, covering 1.6 million sq ft with a promise of nearly 6,500 jobs, in addition to a number of very important projects occupying purpose-built premises of which Mitel is the most important.
Allocations have continued at a very high level in January and during that period the Development Board for Rural Wales has achieved the remarkable record of filling about 20 units covering more than 116,000 sq ft. and 17


of these were entirely new or expanded projects. I find it encouraging that rural Mid-Wales is still proving to be an attractive area for small companies to establish themselves. At the end of March the DBRW will have completed its fifth year of operations and will be able to look back on a period of considerable achievement. In 1977 the board took over 104 factories, over a third of which were vacant. At 31 January this year it had 245 factories, of which only 30 were vacant, with a further 50 under construction or planned. When all those factories are completed and occupied they will provide opportunities for about 6,500 jobs.
I spoke earlier of evidence of an upturn in the economy revealed in the economic indicators. I think that the figures of factory allocations tell the same story. There was a significantly larger number of applications for selective financial assistance in 1981 than in the previous year, and, more important still, a significant increase in the number of offers accepted—112 worth over £20 million and expected to create well over 7,000 new jobs and safeguard over 4,000 existing jobs.
The same high level of interest has continued into the new year, and the number of inquiries to the small firms centre in Cardiff in January was some 70 per cent. up on the same month in 1981. Since the Government came to office the annual figures for inquiries have risen from a little over 6,000 in 1979 to not far short of 11,000 last year. More than 40 per cent. of the total inquiries received last year originated from people wishing to start up new businesses. Emphasis on business start-ups is even more evident in the 33 clinics held by the small firms service throughout Wales. A large number of interviews have been held and are taking place at the clinics.
The urban programme has played an increasingly important part both in building the infrastructure we require and in helping to deal with the social problems of recession which were referred to by the right hon. Member for the Rhondda (Mr. Jones) during Welsh questions on 15 February. As I told him then, the urban programme for 1982–83 amounting to £15.3 million is the largest yet announced and represents a 45 per cent. increase in expenditure over the previous year and more than double the amount spent in 1979–80. A particular emphasis has been placed on schemes which will encourage the creation of small business opportunities, with over £8 million being allocated for new factory units, workshops and other job-creating projects. Special attention is being given once again to areas of high unemployment, with over a quarter of the available resources going to the designated districts. Other districts with severe problems have also been given priority, with the share for Llanelli and Wrexham together amounting to around 12 per cent. of the total.
I was particularly pleased that, with the co-operation of the South and Mid-Glamorgan county councils and Cardiff city council, I have been able, through the urban programme, to provide substantial financial assistance to the industry centre at the University College, Cardiff, which is doing valuable work in developing new products. A sum of £100,000 is being made available for the scheme in 1982–83 and further financial support will be provided in the two following years. I very much hope that this stimulus will lead to the development of links between the university and industry in South Wales, particularly in the small business sector. I have also been able to provide

financial support through the urban programme for Indis, the computer-based information service created by the Mid-Glamorgan county council, which I visited recently at the Polytechnic of Wales. I believe that this is an extremely important and imaginative project and I am currently holding discussions with the council and with others about the future role of Indis in the economy of Wales.
The expenditure of £15.3 million on the urban programme is part of a total capital allocation to local government of £279 million which means that local government in Wales as a whole will have some £46 million extra or about 20 per cent. more than was allocated in the year 1981–82. Among the things that this will enable local authoities to do is to undertake some important county road improvements and I attach particular importance to those that link with the trunk road schemes that are being undertaken by the Welsh Office. One example is the important Hendy link between Llanelli and the M4 motorway which has been brought forward as a result of this additional capital allocation. As we are currently spending about £81/2 million on a factory building programme in the Llanelli area, and, in the light of the very serious unemployment situation there, it is clearly important to press on with that road as quickly as possible.
The Government's motorway and trunk road programme is not only improving communications but bringing construction work at the present time to many parts of Wales. Some £13 million is being spent this year on trunk roads in Dyfed, some £15 million in Gwynedd. Following the opening of the important section of the M4 round Bridgend, we are pressing on with schemes at its western end. On the A48 and A40 route work started on the Carmarthen bypass last April, though because of the need to allow for settlement on the wet ground alongside the Towy it will not be complete until early 1984. The Pontyfenni diversion on the A40, started only last June, should be completed later this year. The Kilgetty bypass on the A477 is about to go out to tender and subject to satisfactory completion of statutory procedures we hope to start work on the A48 Crosshands—Llanddarog bypass and the A40 Carmarthen—Bancyfelin scheme within the next two years. These schemes are worth some £51 million. In South Glamorgan we hope to start the vital A4232 Culverhouse Cross—Capel Llanilltern link around the western side of Cardiff later this year.
In the north we have launched a massive programme of improvement on the A55-A5 route. We started work on the first phase of the Llanddulas-Glanconwy scheme last August and we hope to start the second phase next month. The contract for the start of work on the Hawarden bypass at the eastern end of the A55 was let last month. Preparatory work is continuing on the tunnel crossing of the Conway estuary. On the A5 work on the Bangor bypass began last September after delays due to a High Court action, and the contract for the Llanfair PG bypass, which when completed will enable full use to be made of the Britannia bridge, was let in November. In total, expenditure on the A55 is expected to be around £400 million by the end of the decade. Among other important schemes, we have recently seen the opening of the RaglanAbergavenny link and the important new road around Pontypool is well on the way to completion. All this is part of a programme that is of fundamental importance for the regeneration of the economy of Wales.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned capital programmes for local authorities and their road programme. Can he say how many additional jobs the additional capital investments will create in the construction industry in the county of Gwynedd, and how that will compare with the loss of 3,000 to 4,000 jobs on existing projects?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot give a specific figure for the number of jobs arising from those projects. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been a continuing rundown over the period. I am sure he will agree that completion of these vital road links is probably the most important contribution that we can make to the economy of Gwynedd. It is essential that we link the area with other parts of the United Kingdom as quickly and effectively as possible. The fact that we are giving it tremendous priority is clear evidence of our objective and concern.

Sir Anthony Meyer: When the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, will he give us the latest information on the long-running saga of the Holywell bypass? It would be valuable to have an up-to-date statement.

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate has a special responsibility for the road programme and he will deal with some aspects of it. Some of these roads will be vital for tourism as well as for manufacturing industry. Tourism has been going through a difficult period, but it has not been neglected during this major period of infrastructure improvement. I shall give three examples. I was present when the Prince and Princess of Wales opened the new Aberconwy centre at Llandudno, which will make a very important contribution to a traditional seaside resort.
During the year I visited the Blaenau Ffestiniog railway project, which received substantial financial support from Government agencies and the EEC and which is not only transforming the heart of Blaenau Ffestiniog but promises to be a major boost to the economy of the area. I also paid a visit during the year to St. David's hall in Cardiff, which, when completed later this year, will be among the finest concert halls and conference centres in the whole of Britain. My predecessor was able to make a central Government contribution to this important project, which has also received assistance from the European Community. Together with the very attractive private sector shopping development in the St. David's centre, all this represents a tremendous potential boost for the capital city.
The National Health Service is another area benefiting in our capital programme. When, in the Welsh Grand Committee in December 1979, we considered the programme that we had inherited, I reminded the Committee that we were spending more than 8 per cent. of the annual health budget on capital works. I undertook that we would maintain investment, despite all the gloomy talk about cutbacks and the rundown of the Health Service. I announced a number of major new projects and I told the Committee that we were investing £26 million in that financial year on new hospital buildings and extensions. It is striking evidence that we have fulfilled our pledge that this year we are spending a total of over £41 million on capital works for the National Health Service in Wales. During the year work has started on two major

developments, the district general hospitals at Wrexham and Bridgend, and they should both be finished in 1985 at a cost of £32 million.
We have also started construction of a new community hospital at Mold, on upgrading St. David's hospital in Carmarthen and on an EMI unit at East Glamorgan. In addition to these projects, which I announced last March, I have also found it possible to bring forward an extension to the medical physics department at Singleton hospital, Swansea, and to give authority for tenders to be invited for advance works on the upgrading of Bryntirion hospital, Carmarthen. My Department has also been able to redirect capital funds of over £41/2 million to health authorities for other smaller capital schemes and energy saving measures and to provide £840,000 to carry out much needed improvements to the mental health services.
I believe that together all these works represent a major transformation of infrastructure and that we have made very substantial progress indeed on these essential task; in the course of the last year.

Dr. Roger Thomas: The Secretary of State is obviously intimately informed on these matters, but Bryntirion hospital is in Llanelli and not Carmarthen.

Mr. Edwards: I should have said Llanelli.
The third area of change is in organisation. First, I want to refer to the Health Service. In a speech that I made in St. David's on 5 February I said that since coming into office we had deliberately followed a policy of disengagement, leaving the health authorities to run their own affairs, with far less interference than had been the practice previously. When I took over as Secretary of State, almost every act of the health authorities was dictated from the centre and the chairman very much took the lead from regular meetings presided over by a Welsh Office Minister. All that has been abandoned and the responsibility passed firmly to the authorities, which now have a degree of independence greater that at any time, in their history, even over their capital programmes.
During the year we pressed on with the reorganisation of the service, about which we had consulted at length. Last year I approved the management units, with the exception of those for the new authorities of East Dy fed and Pembrokeshire. The decision to create a system in which far more decisions are taken as close as possible to the point at which services are actually delivered will lead to an improvement in the quality of patient care.
I attach special importance to a major initiative that I took last November to improve the services for mentally handicapped people. I brought together the interested parties, gave a firm commitment by the Welsh Office to press on with the improvement of this tremendously important sector, and set up a working party to make proposals for the development of comprehensive community facilities throughout Wales. As I understand it, the working party is making good progress in its task and will report to me in May this year. To translate the strategy into the reality of services on the ground, I have undertaken to provide £1 million of additional accumulative resources beginning in 1983–84 for an initial period of five years. This by no means implies any neglect of the need to improve facilities for those who remain in the long-stay hospitals. I have already referred to the allocation of £840,000 to schemes of upgrading and refurbishment of mental health facilities and we are now


considering bids for a record level of new central funds—over £650,000—for mental health developments and joint finance schemes beginning in 1982–83.
I have spoken of disengagement in the Health Service. There is a myth that I have been following the opposite course on local government. Of course, at a time of financial constraint, when local government is responsible for such a major share of total public expenditure, it has been necessary to set firm limits to the totality of local government spending. However, within those limits I have not interfered with the right of local authorities to choose their own priorities. Those involved in local government will concede that I have given them the greatest possible freedom to make their own decisions and, because of the moderation and good sense of Welsh local government as a whole, it has been possible to avoid the need to set individual targets or impose individual penalties.
The introduction of a separate Welsh rate support grant system represents a change of fundamental importance for Welsh local government. It has enabled me, in consultation with local authority associations, to respond to the particular needs of Welsh authorities and to insulate Welsh authorities from events taking place in England and decisions of English authorities. It has enabled the Government properly to reward them for their moderation and good sense with what has been acknowledged to be a generous and fair rate support settlement and by the additional capital allocations to which I have already referred. During the debate on the rate support grant I had to warn Welsh authorities that if they exceeded the overall expenditure targets set I should be forced to take appropriate action. However, I hope that that will not happen, because I have no desire to go down the road of setting targets or interfering with the decisions which should properly be taken at local level.
A change to which I can refer to under the heading of "organisation", because it arises from legislation introduced during this Parliament, is the right that we have granted to council house tenants to buy their own houses. The response from public sector tenants in Wales during the past year has been even greater than in other parts of the country and about 39,000 tenants of local authorities alone have now applied to buy their own homes. This flood of applications has created problems for Welsh local authorities and there have been delays in carrying the sales to completion.
As the House knows, I asked local authorities last summer to ensure that, as a minimum objective, offer notices were dispatched by the end of 1981 in all cases where tenants had applied before 3 April 1981. While returns for the final quarter of 1981 have not yet been received from all authorities, the indications are that most of them either met the target or had nearly done so. Four local authorities, regrettably, missed the target by a considerable amount, but, following discussions with my Department, they have undertaken to take steps to speed up progress. I shall be keeping a close watch on how they meet those pledges.
At the end of September about 4,000 sales had occurred and since then the pace at which completions have been taking place has increased considerably. As soon as I have the figures for the last quarter I shall set a target for completion for the outstanding applications. Local authorities have a major incentive to complete, as it will

help them to obtain substantial capital receipts, which will give them the opportunity greatly to enlarge their housing programmes. Next year, on the basis of the improved capital allocations that we have announced, Welsh local authorities will be able to budget for about £150 million of capital expenditure on housing in total.
I hope that local authorities will exploit to the full the opportunity which the present high level of capital receipts gives them to make a real impact on the housing needs of their areas. Most local authorities have been slow to see the opportunity, but, with the assurances that they have now been given, no similar problems need arise next year and it would seem to me totally illogical for local authorities which have sought higher capital allocations than they have received not to make the fullest use of these capital receipts.
I come now to the other main area of organisational change, that involving the Welsh water authority. When, in November, I made a statement about the change in the organisation of the water authority, the right hon. Member for Rhondda said that he could not understand what he regarded as the undue hast in connection with that reorganisation. I have to say to him that I wish I had been able to act even more swiftly. Perhaps, now that he understands the extent of the financial difficulties facing the authority and has seen the level of charges that it has had to impose, he will understand my determination to press on. I do not believe that with the existing cumbersome structure it would have been a practicable possibility to take the action that I consider necessary to improve upon the existing management organisation and to undertake the drastic pruning of costs that is required.
I believe that the present chairman has been in the unenviable position of knowing what was required while being unable to carry it into effect. I hope that the new chairman and the new board, which will inherit a formidable task, will at least have two advantages over their predecessors: first, that they will have the understanding of the House and the people of Wales about what needs to be done and therefore widespread support; and, secondly, that they will have a structure that enables them to act effectively and decisively to cure the present ills of the authority.
I shall return in a moment to what needs to be done. First, I should like to inform the House that I have appointed the new chairman, who will join the board on 1 April and take over on 1 June. For the first time we advertised the vacancy and we had more than 80 applicants. We appointed Tyzack and Partners, the management consultants, to sift applications and make recommendations. They provided us with a short list of four, two of whom were extremely well known to me. I then asked my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) and a senior official in my Department to interview the four short-listed candidates and make recommendations. I received a unanimous recommendation, which I accepted.
The new chairman of the authority will be Mr. John Jones, who at present is seconded to the Welsh Office by his employers, Anglesey Aluminium, and is our industrial director. John Jones has had a long career in the private sector and came to the Welsh Office with the warmest commendations from his employers. Since then he has earned immense respect for the professional and determined manner in which he has set about the task of attracting new industrial development to Wales. I had a


unique opportunity to get to know him extremely well, because he has accompanied me on three inward investment missions overseas. He is a Welsh-speaking Welshman, with a passionate loyalty and love for Wales. I believe that the combination of private sector management experience and involvement over the last two years with the Government well qualify him for the important task that he is undertaking. I hope to announce the names of the majority of the new board within the next couple of weeks.
Turning to the task that will confront that board, I must remind the House that only this morning members of the authority gave evidence to the Welsh Select Committee and I have been asked to appear before the Select Committee next week. In these circumstances, I think it would be right to leave most of the detail until my appearance before the Select Committee. I think, however, today I must make a few things clear.
First, whatever may be said about equalisation and about charging for transfers of water to other authorities, there are more significant and major problems that lie elsewhere. On the question of bulk transfers I cannot comment today, as I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have to adjudicate on an application that has been made to us. On equalisation, I think it should be recognised that the scheme which we abolished because it was so perverse in its effect, taking resources from some of the poorer authorities and giving them to some of the richer, would at its peak have only made a contribution of about £3 million towards the total revenues of the authority, which are in excess of £150 million. That £3 million under the arrangements that we inherited was certain to decrease over the years.
This year the authority will make a loss which, on present estimates, will exceed £8 million. The authority has decided to increase water supply charges by 19.8 per cent. and the average domestic bill for all water charges by 18.3 per cent. If equalisation had still been in effect, those water bills would have not been more than 3 per cent. lower. When I met the chairman and officers of the authority on Friday 29 January, I said that it was disconcerting to find that the authority had not apparently adequately anticipated the decline in revenue arising from the recession. I reminded the chairman that the economic conditions facing the authority were similar to those faced by other organisations in the last year or two and that it was reasonable to expect that the authority would have taken urgent counter measures.
However, as the CBI pointed out in its evidence to the Select Committee, the Welsh water authority's employment statistics indicate some disturbing trends, particularly in comparison with the performance of other authorities. The independent reports that had been obtained last year from Arthur Andersen and this year from Price Waterhouse confirm the view that significant reductions in operating costs should be possible. Certainly I am concerned that a reduction in capital programmes and a reduction in revenue from major customers has not been followed by any comparable reduction in the number of individuals employed. I have asked the authority, as a matter of urgency, to submit manpower and other costs to the most rigorous re-examination.
I have to tell the House that the financial target which I set this year was dictated by the financial circumstances in which the authority finds itself. While some legal

uncertainties are still to be resolved about the statutory obligations of the authority, the fact is that any lower financial target would have resulted not only in the use of all the authority's remaining reserves, even assuming that they could properly be realised, but in an overall deficit at the end of 1982–83. In a letter to me of 10 February the chairman accepted that any action that would have placed the authority in that position would have been irresponsible and wholly unacceptable and that it was right to give the new authority a fair start.
Public comment on these events has tended to concentrate on the view that the proper way to protect users of water in Wales from excessive charges is by some pooling or equalisation of costs between authorities. However, as the chairman of the National Water Council has pointed out, such action would weaken the individual responsibility of authorities and their desire to achieve value for money. There is an overriding necessity to see that those that provide public services do so as efficiently and competitively as is possible and to go for equalisation rather than improved efficiency is simply to pass on an unnecessary burden from one group to another, either to customers of more efficient authorities elsewhere or to the taxpayer in general. I am certain that it must be my first responsibility to create an organisation and to appoint a board capable of doing what everyone in Wales knows is possible: to improve the efficiency of the Welsh wafer authority and reduce its costs.
I have one other subject to which I wish to refer under the heading of organisational change. We have published our White Paper "A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action", which sets out the way in which we intend to move towards a comprehensive training programme. We have announced that from September 1983 all minimum age unemployed school leavers will be guaranteed a full year's traineeship. In all, we will be spending nearly £4 billion on improving training between now and 1985. It must be right that we should move as fast as we possibly can to obtain much more comprehensive training arrangements not only for the young and the unemployed but also for older people and those in jobs to enable them to equip themselves better for work.
In the meantime, for the young, the youth opportunities programme will continue to be developed with improvement in the quality of its provision. I am glad to say that for 1982–83 we will be able to provide in Wales some 8,000 of the projected 48,000 youth opportunity places on the basis of the new year-long training programme. At the same time as we are looking to radical changes in the training arrangements for the young, we are also looking at educational provision for 16 to 19-yearolds and what is done in the last year in school before young people reach the minimum school leaving age.
There has been considerable interest in the introduction of an experimental scheme in three areas in England to encourage and help unemployed people who want to let up in business with the aid of so-called enterprises allowances. I am glad to be able to announce today—the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) may be interested in what I have to tell him—that I have agreed with the Manpower Services Commission that we should launch an enterprise allowance scheme in Wales. The area chosen is Deeside in North-East Wales—specifically the areas of Wrexham Maelor, Alyn and Deeside and Delyn. A figure of £1/2 million has been earmarked for this.
The scheme will be administered by the Manpower Services Commission through its jobcentre network. Its aim is to evaluate whether the loss of benefit payments at the crucial initial stage of setting up a business is, as has been argued, a serious deterrent to the unemployed starting their own businesses. The MSC hopes to have the scheme in Deeside running in April: the pilot scheme will operate for three years. The small firms counsellors of the WDA will be fully involved in the experiment.
One thing will have become clear already during this debate, and that is that the responsibilities of a Secretary of State for Wales are now extremely wide. Inevitably on these occasions I am faced with an impossible dilemma—either I go on at excessive length and am criticised by hon. Members for doing so, or I am criticised for failing to comment about matters that are clearly important, and sometimes, I suspect, for both, simultaneously and probably by the same hon. Members.
It is not because I do not realise the immense importance to Wales of many other events and issues such as the position of the coal industry, the future of the steel industry and the problems that confront the agriculture industry, to take three obvious examples: it is not because I underestimate their significance that I have failed to mention them. What I have sought to do is to identify, against the background of the major economic difficulties that confront us and the high unemployemt levels the radical and important changes that have been taking place in Wales during this period.
It is very easy in the depths of recession to speak only of the setbacks and identify the problems. I hope that the House will at least begin to recognise the fundamental nature of the changes that have been taking place. As a result of the changes in organisation that I have described we are better equipped to tackle our problems. As a result of the major programme of infrastructure improvement that we have been carrying out we are preparing the ground for future recovery and prosperity. As a result of the changes in attitude that I have identified, and the high reputation that we are establishing, particularly among overseas concerns, we are already well on the way to building a stronger and more diverse economy. It has, of course, been another difficult and anxious year and on top of everything else we had the bad weather. But the improvements about which I have spoken give grounds for hope and I am confident that ahead lies a year of slow, but strong and mounting recovery.

Mr. Alec Jones: I understood there was a possibility, and had been some discussion, of the Welsh day debate being held on 1 March, St. David's day. Having listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales, I am thankful that it was not, because Saint David would have turned in his grave if he could but see the havoc that this Government have wreaked all over Wales in the short time for which they have been responsible.
The one blessing is that the Government are more than halfway through their disastrous life, and, even if they hang on to the bitter end, their days are still numbered. Despite the rosy spectacles worn by the Secretary of State, the truth is that no part of Wales and no significant group of Welsh people have escaped the Government's incompetent administration. The Secretary of State, his

ministerial henchmen and his sycophantic Back Benchers have together managed to spread discontent, distress and disaster from one end of Wales to the other. The unemployment figures announced on Tuesday—even allowing for the slight, but nevertheless welcome, fall—bear testimony to this.
The songs of praise of the Secretary of State today bear little comparison with the reality on the ground, which I see whenever I go home at the weekend. The Tory manifesto, referring to unemployment, said:
the disastrous effect of Labour's economic policies on Wales is most starkly revealed by the record level of unemployment".
That was in June 1979 when unemployment in Wales was 80,000. Today it is 174,878. If 80,000 was a stark revelation of disaster, what is 174,878? It is concrete evidence of the failure of this Government's policies. It is also a cruel reminder to the people of Wales that the Tory Party, like the leopard, cannot change its spots. The Tory Party is today, as it was in my youth, the party of unemployment in Wales. Under the Secretary of State's stewardship unemployment in Wales has increased by 118-5 per cent. One in six of our work force is now officially registered as unemployed, and with unemployment now standing at 16-1 per cent., Wales has the unenviable distinction of a higher percentage of people unemployed than Scotland or any region of England.
This is just the overall picture. No part of Wales has escaped the ravages of the Government's economic follies. Each month at Question Time my hon. Friends seek information from the Secretary of State about the high unemployment in their constituencies of Swansea, Aberdare, Merthyr, Neath and other areas, and the Secretary of State is always obliged to confirm the worst. But at those Welsh Question Times there is a signifacant omission. There are no questions from Welsh Conservative Members about the levels of unemployment in their constituencies. They are very coy about it, as well they might be.

Mr. Tom Hooson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman himself being coy in failing to recognise that in the life of the last Government unemployment in Wales increased from 38,000 to 83,000 and was on its way to six figures?

Mr. Jones: Even conceding the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's figures, that is an increase in unemployment of 45,000 for the whole period. Today's figures show an increase in unemployment of 94,878 in less than three years. That shows that, even on his own figure, this Government have increased unemployment to today's fantastic level in less than three years.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman intervened because Conservative Members are rather shy about having unemployment figures published for their areas. But, for the sake of greater accuracy, I have obtained figures for them. Since June 1979 unemployment has increased in Anglesey by 88 per cent., in Monmouth by 97 per cent., in Rhyl by 118 per cent., in Denbigh by 121 per cent., in Colwyn Bay by 122 per cent., in Barry by 141 per cent., and in Brecon, Llandrindod Wells and Newtown by 163 per cent. Now I understand why the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) sought to intervene: there was an increase of 163 per cent. in unemployment in Brecon, Llandrindod Wells and Newtown.
Lest the Secretary of State thinks that I have forgotten Pembrokeshire, let me say that unemployment in his


constituency has risen by 128 per cent. since he took over responsibility. Is that what those areas were promised at the last election?

Mr. Ian Grist: rose——

Mr. Jones: I advise the hon. Member to be patient and listen to the truth, just as Machiavelli advised the Prince. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Grist: As the right hon. Gentleman is giving percentages, will he give the percentage increase in unemployment in the seat of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) during the period of the Labour Government?

Mr. Jones: Certainly. Unemployment increased considerably not only in the area of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), but in many other areas. However, we did much more about it. Today the Secretary of State, in his long list, referred to the great news about the Raglan and Abergavenny road link. The decision to go ahead with that link was made when we were in Government. That is when the whole scheme started.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I actually started the work on the scheme. The scheme began under this Government.

Mr. Jones: Surely the Secretary of State will confirm that the scheme was in the pipeline, the plans drawn up, and the agreement made for the scheme to go ahead when we were in power. He knows that that is the truth, just as he knows that it is the truth about many other items in the list that he gave today. I understand the concern of Conservative Members, because they have never asked for these figures, and they do not like to hear them now. This is the better life of the people in those areas which has resulted from the activities of the Conservative Party.
The Tory manifesto said:
We shall restore the incentive to work".
In practice, Tories have destroyed the opportunity to work. In June 1974, when the Labour Government took office, 992,000 people were employed in Wales. By June 1979, when we left office, the figure had risen to 1,022,000. There were 30,000 more people in work at the end of Labour's period of office than when Labour took over. By June 1981, the number of people employed had been reduced to 914,000. By September 1981, the number was down to 909,000. Today there are fewer people working in Wales than at any time during the past 30 years. One would never have believed that, listening to the speech of the Secretary of State.
When we talk about 174,878 unemployed people in Wales today, we are talking about half a million men, women and children whose lives are blighted by this scandal. The longer a person is unemployed, the more damaging is the effect on the family. In October 1981, the last date for which figures have been published, there were 87,000 Welsh men and women unemployed for more than six months—that is just over half. Of them, as the Secretary of State confirmed, 50,000, or 30 per cent., had been unemployed for more than 12 months.
The great success of the Conservative Party is that long-term unemployment in Wales doubled between October 1980 and October 1981. That is why concern has been expressed by organisations outside this place. A research group in Cardiff described how unemployment can destroy

the family unit, retarding the development of teenagers, and thus passing the scars on to another generation. The research group said:
For the long-term unemployed, grief shows itself in many ways; alcoholism, withdrawal from the reality of the situation, helplessness and hostility towards members of the family and people in work".
The eight directors of social services of the Welsh county councils claimed in a recent report that unemployment in Wales would bring in its wake over the next five years 2,500 extra deaths, 3,195 extra admissions to psychiatric hospitals, and 695 extra prison sentences.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a ward in the psychiatric hospital at Bridgend in which psycho-geriatric patients have to be sent home to accommodate the young unemployed people who are psychiatrically affected?

Mr. Jones: I am aware of that. The hospital administrator at the Glanrhyd hospital has said that there has already been a 50 per cent. increase in young people attending as psychiatric out-patients. That is why the designation of the ward was changed.
In talking about unemployment, therefore, we are talking not just about the number of people out of work, but about the social consequences and the price that individuals have to pay. It is the price that Wales is paying today for Tory economic and social policies. It is a price that will leave a scar on our society, and it will take many years to heal.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with some interest, but so far we have heard nothing about his policies to reverse the position. Where will he get the money, and who will pay the price of the policies that I am sure we shall be told about in the next few minutes?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member should be patient, because I shall come to that. Had he paid more attention to what goes on in the House, he would have known that in the past month we have had a series of debates on unemployment and economic measures, in which my right hon. Friends have spelt out the details of the alternative economic policies that we believe the Government should follow. [Interruption.] It is no good the Secretary of State muttering. He was not even present at the last debate.
Let us consider the method of dealing with long-term unemployment. There has been a deliberate attempt artificially to reduce and massage downwards the numbers on the unemployment register. I shall quote from a letter that was sent to unemployed men of 60 years and over, who have received supplementary benefit for 12 months.
It says:
if you decide to be taken off the register for work … you will get up to £6.35 a week more (up to £9.60 a week more if you are married) … you will not have to 'sign on' at an unemployment benefit office … you will still be able to look for work… use job centres … get credits to qualify for national insurance benefits".
In the first month, 1,300 Welshmen took advantage of that scheme. They would have been fools not to do 3o. However, at the end of that time, those 1,300 people are still as unemployed as they were when they took the offer.
We now find that we are to move to voluntary registration. Presumably, the Government hope that this will bring down the number of registered unemployed.
The unemployed have to answer 18 questions, which is reminiscent of the means tests of the 1930s. At the end there is a beautiful question:
Why did you leave your last job?
The truth is that most of the people who are unemployed in Wales today did not leave their jobs; their jobs left them, as a consequence of the Government's action.
The Government say how generous they have been to people who are in special need. The Secretary of State referred to the consequences of the weather. The Welsh Office issued a notice for the Department of Health and Social Security which told how the unemployed, the sick, the disabled and pensioners could benefit from extra help towards their heating costs. In that document, this was the type of question that those people were asked:
In order for me to calculate any benefit payable to you for extra heating, would you please state, if you had not bought extra fuel, what would you have spent the money on instead?
What a stupid question. It is all part of what The Guardian described on 17 February as
Thatcher sets sights on 'workshy' jobless.
The vast majority of the unemployed in Wales are not workshy but are job hungry.
I shall give an example from my constituency. The local authority wanted two young clerical officers. It normally sets down that such officers should have a standard of education of three O-levels. For those two jobs, the local authority received 233 applications. Some of the applicants had 10 O-levels, and also A-levels, and others had degrees in subjects such as metallurgy and economics. It is no wonder that the chairman of the committee said to me "How on earth do you start short-listing that lot, when almost every one of them is capable of doing the job?" They are not workshy but job hungry.
Perhaps that is a follow-up to the sort of advice given by the Prime Minister to the unemployed of Swansea two years ago. She told them to "increase their mobility". The unemployed of Wales know more about mobility than almost any other people in the United Kingdom. I recall the Secretary of State for Employment's fatuous remark at the Tory conference about getting on a bike. Let us picture the scene. Three million unemployed cyclists whizzing around from John o'Groats to Land's End looking for work. Where on earth could that work be found? It could not be found anywhere in Wales. Wales has 16.1 per cent. unemployment. It could not be found in the North—unemployment there is 16 per cent. In Scotland it is 15·2 per cent. In the West Midlands, which was often the hope of many people, unemployment is 15·1 per cent. The truth is that the Government have put their dirty hand on all areas of the country.
I turn to the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales. Let us imagine that the unemployed in Pembrokeshire were to take the advice of the Secretary of State for Employment. The 470 unemployed of Fishguard would get on their bikes and cycle to Haverfordwest. The 1,600 unemployed of Haverfordwest would get on their bikes and cycle to Milford Haven. The 1,600 unemployed of Milford Haven would get on their bikes and cycle to Pembroke Dock. The 1,267 unemployed in Pembroke Dock would get on their bikes and cycle to Tenby. Presumably, the 900 unemployed in Tenby would cycle back to Fishguard and thus complete the circle. However, at the end of those journeys there would be still 5,840 unemployed in Pembrokeshire. The very idea would

border on the laughable or the ridiculous were it not so tragic for the unemployed and their families. They are paying the heaviest price, although we are all paying.
The estimated cost to the Exchequer of 3 million unemployed is £12 billion a year. On that basis, the extra cost of the increase in unemployment in Wales since the Government came to power is £380 million a year. The total cost to the Exchequer of today's unemployment in Wales is about £700 million. While we are paying that price for today's unemployment, we have thousands of skilled workers in the dole queue and, at the same time, our people are desperately in need of the goods and services that those skilled workers could provide.
Nowhere is that more evident than in the construction industry. The index of industrial production for the Welsh construction industry was 16 per cent. lower in the third quarter of 1981 than in the third quarter of 1980. Consequently, unemployment among building workers had soared by 40 per cent. by the end of last year. At the same time as those skilled building workers were on the dole, fewer houses were started in Wales in the public sector last year than in any year since the Second World War. In 1980, 2,831 houses were started and in 1981 the figure is likely to be less than 2,000. The private sector performed little better.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend is being too modest. The figures are already available for public sector starts in Wales in 1981. They are at an all-time low of 1,130.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend knows how kind I am to the Conservative Party, but I am grateful to him for updating my figures. I did not dream that the figure would be as miserably low as that.
In the private sector only about 5,027 houses were started in 1980. We must go back 23 years before we find a lower figure. In no year since the Second World War has house building been at such a low ebb. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will keep a close watch on the sale of council houses and an even closer watch on the need for house building in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am keeping a close watch on the substantial underspend and the money that is available for local authorities to spend on housing if they so wish.

Mr. Jones: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping an eye on underspend. I have some personal experience of it and I recall the laughter that came from Conservatives Members when I mentioned underspend at the time that I had some responsibility in this area. I urge all local authorities in Wales to spend up to the hilt on building houses that are needed. The present unemploy- ment in the construction industry, coupled with the miserable record of house building, is an indictment of the Government. The Government's own Welsh housing and dwelling survey published in 1981 showed that the average waiting list for council houses was about 25,000.
A recent inquiry carried out by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, after mentioning the 40 per cent. unemployment among building workers, stated that South Wales also had the highest percentage of contractors working at half or less than half capacity—55 per cent. in December 1981 as against 28 per cent. nationally. The president of the South Wales region, Mr. Edwards, said


If 1982 is not to be a more disastrous year for South Wales builders than last year with more firms forced out of business there is an urgent need for Government action before it is too late.

Mr. Hooson: While the right hon. Gentleman is updating his statistics, he may be grateful for the first detailed results of the 1981 census, which show that for the six counties covered—all the populous counties of Wales—an average of 4.4 per cent. of the housing stock was unoccupied. Does that not show clearly that the housing priority is no longer the construction of new dwellings but the improvement of existing ones? Does the right hon. Gentleman support the Government's efforts to encourage improvements?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows how little experience he has of dealing with the housing problem in Wales. No one has advocated an extension of the improvement grant system more than I, but it is folly to believe that one can improve more houses and at the same time reduce the amount of money that is available for doing the job.
Today young people lobbied hon. Members. I believe that they were right to do so. A nation that denies its young people not only work but hope is taking a dangerous gamble with its future. Nearly 68,000—that is about 39 per cent.—young Welsh people under 25 are unemployed and 13,000 of those young people have been unemployed for more than 12 months.
In my constituency of Rhondda 712 16 and 17-yearolds are unemployed and 572 are on various forms of youth opportunities programmes. There are 1,916 aged 18 to 24 in the dole queue, which means that in Rhondda alone 3,200 young people under the age of 25 are seeking work. If those young people, who are the backbone of any community, are forced away from Wales, once again we shall face the massive depopulation problems and population drain that decimated not only the valleys of South Wales but many parts of rural Wales in the 1930s.
In January last year the present Secretary of State for Transport was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying that the economic recovery would be dramatic. That was a year ago and we are still waiting for that recovery. The Minister went on to say that the recovery would bypass the worn out areas and that it would bring heavy social consequences, bewilderment and frustration.
We see the heavy social consequences in Wales today. We see the bewilderment and frustration. However, there must be no question of Wales being one of those worn out areas to be bypassed. That was why, when we were in Government, we created organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales referred again to the achievements of the WDA, which is a bit of a cheek because if the Conservatives had had their way they would have strangled it at birth. I confirm what he said, that Wales is a good place for industry to move to. We have a work force and we have communications, thanks not only to the Government, as suggested by the Secretary of State today, but to the far-sightedness of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) in pushing ahead with the M4.
In the main, every announcement made by the Secretary of State today was a repetition of what we have heard before. However, every time he can announce to the

House a new factory building, we shall cheer. Every time he talks of factories being taken over by tenants, we shall applaud that. Every time we hear of new derelict land schemes, we shall welcome them. We welcome schemes carried out by the WDA and DBRW, neither of which would have seen the light of day had it not been for a Labour Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon.
I am grateful for the work that has been done by the WDA and the DBRW, but despite that work neither of those bodies can fulfil their roles. They cannot measure up to the scale of the problem without a change in Government policies. If we were to add up all the jobs created in the last two years and jobs in the pipeline, the total would measure up to the number of jobs lost—113,000 fewer people are employed in Wales than when the Government took office.
The Government say that there are no alternatives. That can no longer hold water. A whole range of alternatives has been spelt out in the House by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. They were spelt out by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) who was at it again today in The Guardian. They were spelt out by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Even the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) gave a few words of warning some time ago when he said that unless the Government did something about unemployment without clobbering the unemployed they would lose the next election.
The alternatives were spelt out on 28 January by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) when he called for a plan for expansion led by public investment. If public investment means increased borrowing, we accept the responsibility and consequences.
Even the CBI has put forward a mini-alternative. In the last week or so a detailed alternative was spelt out by the Trades Union Congress in its document "Programme for Recovery." Therefore, when Conservative Members say that there is no alternative they are wrong. A variety of alternatives has been put forward. It is only the blindest of the members of the Government who will not accept any of them.
Unless some such alternative is speedily adopted, the young people of Wales will continue to live not only without a job but without hope. Particularly hard hit will be the school leavers. Despite YOP and other such measures, the number of school leavers in the dole queue has risen from 2,742 in February 1980 to 5.750 in February 1981 to 8,041 in February 1982.
On 18 January the Under-Secretary confirmed that some 25.1 per cent. of Welsh school leavers left school with no formal certification—neither CSEs nor 0 levels. The comparable figure for England is 12 per cent. Surely that is one defect in our present education system.
The HMI report last year drew attention to the fact that
the continuation of present expenditure policies must have substantial adverse effects on some schools … there are signs in many schools of arrested curriculum development, and the preoccupation of the system with short-term survival augurs ill for the future, especially if further cuts are imposed.
Further cuts have been imposed since that report v' as made.
My education authority in Mid-Glamorgan has been forced to cut teaching staff, administrative staff, ancillary staff, capitation grants and even youth service by 25 per cent.

The Under-Secretary of State for WalesMr.Michael Roberts): Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio in Mid-Glamorgan is at a best ever level?

Mr. Jones: If the Minister will be patient, I shall give him the figures for Mid-Glamorgan. He was coy about them when he trotted out the pupil-teacher ratio at Welsh Question Time about a week ago. That was in my mind when I delved further into the matter, as he will see.
Among the cuts, there is a cut in youth service. It is a savage blow for a local education authority, when youth unemployment is so high, to be forced to cut youth service. In-service teacher training and discretionary awards will also have to be cut.
The Minister mentioned a good pupil-teacher ratio. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) that we were ignoring the implications of falling rolls. In the last two years Mid-Glamorgan county council has shed 165 teachers because of falling rolls. It was forced to shed another 282 teachers as a direct result of Government cuts.
The problem for higher education is the same. By 1983–84 there will be 1,200 fewer student places in Welsh universities. By then, we shall have young men and women leaving schools in Wales with all the necessary qualifications for university entry but with no place to go. I speak as an ex-teacher. What sort of encouragement will that be to students who are anxious to further their education, or to teachers who have generally sought to guide their pupils along the right path?
We should not add trained and qualified teachers and lecturers to the dole queue when we can see the defects of the existing education system. The expertise of those teachers and lecturers is needed if our young people are to be educated and trained for the needs of the future.
The Secretary of State talked about real optimism. I do not find evidence of that optimism among organisations in Wales. Perhaps he finds it somewhere in the depths of the

Welsh Office. A recent Welsh CBI survey of industrial trends said that in the past four months 68 per cent. of manufacturing firms had reduced employment, and only 8 per cent. had taken on more employees. It continued:
This points to sharply falling employment and on a more extensive basis that is suggested by the preceding two surveys".
The Government have now talked for a year about economic recovery. In June last year, the Secretary of State assured his party faithful that recovery was absolutely certain. Today, he talked of real optimism. The unemployment figures do not confirm that. The question that the 175,000 unemployed in Wales are now asking is how long will it be before they can go back to work and provide for themselves, for their families and for their people.
There can be no real improvement in unemployment, housing, educational services, social services or a whole range of other services which have been adversely affected by the Government without a change in Government policy for the whole of Britain. Opposition Members, certainly Labour Members, and the trade union movement are seeking such a change and have spelt out what the change should be, what it will cost and how the costs will be met.
Despite the Secretary of State's words, unemployment remains the greatest social evil of our time. The Government have failed Wales, the Secretary of State has failed Wales and Conservative Back Benchers, by their meek acquiescence, have compounded that failure.

Royal Assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr.Ernest Armstrong): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1.Shipbuilding Act 1982
2.Hops Marketing Act 1982
3.Transport (Finance) Act 1982
4.New Towns Act 1982
5.Western Isles Islands Council (Loch Roag) Order Confirmation Act 1982
6.Humberside Act 1982

Welsh Affairs

Mr. Geraint Morgan: After the fiery polemics of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) I shall turn to a more peaceful scene. No doubt because of the multiplicity of the subjects with which he had to deal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not find time to say anything about the important subject of agriculture. I hope that the right hon. Member for Rhondda will not accuse me of being a sycophantic Back Bencher if I do not criticise my right hon. Friend for not speaking for longer than he did.
It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House of the important part that agriculture plays in the Welsh economy. Indeed, Welsh agriculture plays an important part in many aspects of British agriculture out of all proportion to our population and area. Welsh agriculture is dominated by livestock production. The sheep breedng flock represents some 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. Welsh farms carry nearly 13 per cent. of the United Kingdom beef herd and we produce more than 10 per cent. of United Kingdom milk. The total value of Welsh agricultural output is about £450 million per annum.
It has been the fate of Welsh farmers, as of farmers in the United Kingdom generally, to have suffered a fall in real and nominal income for some years. It is now estimated to be only one-half in real terms of what it was in 1976. Hill and upland cattle and sheep farms have been especially hard hit. It seems likely that the value of farm output this year will show a rise in nominal but not real terms. The concomitant of the sharp fall in real incomes has been a disastrous fall in the value of investment, which is now at its lowest level for more than 20 years. Between 1980 and 1981 there was a fall of 18 per cent. in investment in plant, machinery and vehicles and of no less than 23 per cent. in building.
In those depressing circumstances, it becomes especially vital that the green pound should not be adjusted to the disadvantage of Welsh and other United Kingdom farmers. That is a real peril, in that that has been recommended by the EEC Commission. If that recommendation were implemented, the benefit of the 9 per cent. increase in farm prices, which has also been recommended by the Commission, will be more that halved for United Kingdom farmers.
I know that I am preaching to the converted when tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that these proposals- must be strongly resisted, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that he intends to do so. I have every confidence that he will resist those proposals as vigorously as he has championed British agricultural interests within the EEC.
Before I leave the subject of agriculture, I make a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to think that I do so with as much confidence as I did to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the other matter. My plea is for the reduction of the incidence of capital gains tax and capital transfer tax on agricultural holdings. I hope that the Budget will contain proposals not merely for a general reduction but for a general reappraisal of both these taxes, especially capital gains tax.
Capital gains tax has borne especially heavily on agriculture because of the phenomenal inflation of land prices since the oil crisis of 1973. The latest available figures for the three months ending 30 September 1981 show an average price per hectare—I suppose that we must now get used to hectares—in Wales of just over £2,500. That was indeed a slight reduction on the previous three months, when the average price was in excess of £2,500. In broad terms that represents an inflation rate of more than 1,000 per cent. over the past 20 years. That would not be so great a problem if there were an equitable basis for the extraction of capital gains tax, but there is not.
When he became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853, Mr. Gladstone was moved to describe income tax as an immoral tax tempting Governments to extravagance and taxpayers to fraudulent evasion. If Mr. Gladstone were with us now, I cannot conceive how forceful an adjective he might use to describe capital gains tax, which is uniquely unjust in that it is based on the quite fraudulent fiction that the pound has the same value today as it hid in April 1965, when, as we all know, its true value is now less than one-fifth of what it then was.
It would be churlish of me not to reflect the appreciation of farmers generally, and especially those in my constituency to whom I have spoken, for such measures of relief as the Government have introduced in this sphere since 1979, particularly in the form of roll-over provisions and exemptions, but all this has essentially been tinkering with the problem. The time has now surely come when the Government can no longer avoid addressing themselves to the core of the matter—the basis on which the tax is to be exacted, if indeed it must be retained at all.
I have never been impressed by Treasury objections to tapering or indexation, but if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor remains immovable with regard to those two solutions, I hope that he will not reject other, albeit to my mind less satisfactory, solutions such as introducing as a base the level of land prices and asset values which obtained in, say, 1975.
It was particularly appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should refer to the Welsh language, as the last parliamentary Session saw a painstaking investigation into Welsh language broadcasting by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. In addition, the first detailed results of the 1981 census seem to show that the speaking of the language continues to decline in most areas, although there has been a small but encouraging increase in the number of Welsh speakers in the two counties where one might least expect it, where the language has traditionally been weakest for the better part of a century—South Glamorgan and Gwent. Overall, however, in the past decade there has been a 2 per cent. decrease, which the language could ill afford.
If one looks back to the beginning of the century, or even just three decades to 1951, the seriousness of the decline becomes even clearer. The figures are stark. In 1911 Welsh speakers numbered not far short of 1 million. By 1951 the number had fallen to fewer than three-quarters of a million. By 1971 it was just over half a million, and the present number is almost certainly less than that figure. In short, the number of Welsh speakers is now about half what it was at the beginning of the century.
Whatever may be said in criticism of the Westminster Parliament's attitude to the Welsh language in years gone by—and much could probably be said in that context—no


one can deny that Governments of both parties have made substantial contributions to its well-being in the past two decades.
I need not recite all the achievements on behalf of the language during that period. I will mention just two examples. The 1967 Act granted official status to the Welsh language. Then, about six years later, at considerable cost—some £4 million—there was the provision of Welsh road signs.
The determination to continue to give the language all possible support is evidenced by the generous grants made by the Government in the current financial year to the various organisations concerned with its survival and wellbeing. Those grants are not just far higher than any made under any previous Government, but show a marked increase over those for the previous financial year—well over £1-5 million, compared with just under £1 million in the preceding year—and this at a time of acute financial stringency.
The great "make or break" effort on behalf of the Welsh language will, of course, be the introduction of the Welsh fourth channel. I hope and believe that the Government will give this historic venture every chance and will adopt a generous and sympathetic attitude when they review its performance after three years. There will certainly be teething troubles, and it may take some time to get established, but there is no reason why it should not eventually be just as successful as Radio Cymru, despite the prophesies of doom of the Jeremiahs who always seem to flourish on these occasions. Of one thing I am sure—if it does not succeed, in all probability all our efforts and expenditure on behalf of our ancient language will have been in vain. So let us do everything humanly possible to ensure that it does not fail.
I wish to deal briefly with the Government's road building programme in Wales. A memorandum from the British Road Federation, which I think all hon. Members have received, emphasises, if emphasis were needed, the important economic benefits which flow to an area as a result of major road investment, in terms of increased industrial development potential, improved access to markets and suppliers, increased tourism potential, and so on. One statistic produced by the federation epitomises the beneficial effect since 1966 of the extension of the M4 and the building of the Severn bridge. A survey of 97 new firms in Gwent showed that almost four-fifths of them had been influenced by the motorway in their choice of location and that just over half of them regarded its availability as a major consideration.
Unhappily, North Wales has been the poor relation for many years in this respect. We have not one centimetre, let alone a good British inch, of motorway. Our principal and modest plea has been for the dual-carriagewaying of the A55. At long last, however, it is a matter of some comfort to us that, of the total Welsh road expenditure budget for the current financial year, by far the greatest allocation has been made for improvement of the A55. In time, this will make North Wales far more attractive to incoming industry generally. It will also be of particular value to tourism, which is assuming an ever-greater importance in our economy.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his present concentration on improving the A55, but I beg him not to rest on his laurels when the work is 

completed but to direct his attention to other important routes in North Wales and especially to the A5, to which virtually no improvements—certainly none of any magnitude—have been effected in the past 20 years.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that the important motorway link across England to the A5 is now under way and will be of considerable importance to North Wales.

Mr. Morgan: I appreciate that, but it does not detract from what I said about lack of work on the A55 for 20 years.
I regret very much that there is one last issue to which I must refer, but, as it is a topical matter in the Principality this week, it would be wrong to avoid doing so. I refer to the final vote of the Welsh counties, that of the county of Clwyd in which most of my constituency lies, declaring its area to be a nuclear-free zone. Frankly, I can find no adjective less strong than "irresponsible" adequately to describe the votes to that end of successive Welsh county councils. I cannot think that they truly represent the views of the Welsh people as a whole. I doubt whether more than a tiny number of those councillors were elected on what must be regarded as a unilateralist platform.
One public opinion poll after another has shown that the British people as a whole, by a very large majority, wish Britain to remain an effective member of NATO and to retain the nuclear deterrent as the surest way to safeguard the peace that we have managed to preserve, at any rate in Europe, for upwards of 35 years. I cannot think that Welsh opinion is basically different from that of Britain as a whole on this issue. After all, only three years ago the Welsh people voted by an overwhelming majority for Wales to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom.
I have heard it said that many of the councillors who voted to make their counties so-called nuclear-free zones did so only as a symbolic gesture, believing that the legal effect would be virtually nil anyway.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the Welsh people did not vote on the question of remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Morgan: What else did they vote for in the referendum?

Mr. Tom Ellis: The devolution referendum had nothing to do with Wales' separation from the United Kingdom. It would have remained firmly within.

Mr. Morgan: That strengthens my point. Wales did not even want to have a local Assembly. It wanted to be governed from Westminster. That is the point that I am making.
If the vote for so-called nuclear-free zones was a symbolic gesture, it was one that the Western Alliance could well have done without at a time when the Soviet Union has bared its teeth, directly in Afghanistan and, by proxy, in Poland. Its effect will assuredly be to confirm would-be aggressors in the belief that we are not prepared to resist aggression.

Mr. Hooson: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is not the county councils' business to concern themselves with either defence or foreign policy?

Mr. Morgan: I said so in Welsh on television last night.

Mr. Keith Best: Say it again.

Mr. Morgan: I shall say it again, but not in Welsh, as that would, unfortunately, be out of order.
Many hon. Members are old enough to remember the disastrous effect of similar symbolic gestures by organisations like the Peace Pledge Union in places like the Oxford Union before the Second World War. My only hope is that those who voted in that way will speedily realise what a Pandora's box they may have opened. There have already been threats, publicly uttered, to force my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to abandon the civil defence programme for Wales under the threat of a local revolt. There have been threats to block planning applications from the Ministry of Defence, to publish local war plans, to open war bunkers—whatever they may be—for public inspection and even to provide evening classes in what are euphemistically described as "peace studies". I do not suppose that more than a small minority of the councillors who indulged in that exercise believed, or even contemplated, that they might be instigating public disorder. However, their actions have undoubtedly, if unwittingly, given a spur to it.
Finally, may I say a word to the self-styled nationalists who seem to have convinced themselves that small nations like Wales can somehow opt out of things and ignore Western defence as something that does not concern them. It concerns all small nations who still enjoy their freedom, and it concerns them mightily. In the last analysis, it concerns them more than the large nations. Can it for a moment be supposed that if there were a Soviet takeover of Western Europe the new masters would have the least regard for small nations, their languages and cultures? The answer to that question has been provided in a fearful form by the Soviet Union itself in the way that it has treated its national minorities from the Black Sea to the Baltic, in particular, those small nations which it swallowed up within its empire against their will over four decades ago. All those nations have been subjected to deliberate Russification and one, the Tartars of the Crimea, has been the victim of what can only be called a form of genocide.
Let all thinking people in Wales reflect on those things and come to the only sane and logical conclusion, that the twin causes of liberty and peace—for the maintenance of which the Western Alliance came into being—must be given full-hearted support in Wales as everywhere else.

Dr. Ifor Davies: I readily welcome the opening remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and the tribute that he paid to the efficiency of the Welsh agriculture industry. I take advantage of the opportunity to put on record an appreciation of the way in which agriculturists and farmers in my constituency coped during the recent weather crisis.
No debate on Welsh affairs could be realistic unless it concerned itself with the problems of unemployment. Those problems have already been underlined in the debate. The Secretary of State invited hon. Members to join him in singing the praises in a loud chorus of Wales as a good place in which to live and as a good place for new industries. I readily join him in singing that song.
However, as has rightly been stated, unemployment in Wales has reached record figures. We dare not ignore that. A figure of 16.1 per cent. has been cited. My constituency has been badly affected by redundancies in the steel and

tinplate industries, and the male unemployment figure stands at 19 per cent. There are many constituencies in Wales with even higher unemployment, and unemployment in the Secretary of State's constituency of Pembroke is between 20 and 25 per cent.
It is surely time that we recognised unemployment for what it is—a moral and social evil of the first order. Our primary aim must be its reduction. There should be a far greater sense of outrage about the truly disastrous level of unemployment throughout the country, which denies our people a fundamental dignity—the right to work. No issue causes graver concern. During the past few months the House has listened to many hon. Members from both sides of the House describe the soul-destroying effects of unemployment.
I welcome the recent declaration by Church organisations involving them with this great problem. The fact that one-third of the total number of unemployed have been out of work for nearly 12 months highlights the long-term seriousness of the problem. It is particularly tragic that unemployment among the young is rising steeply, and the situation of those aged under 18 gives rise to even greater concern. I welcome the reduction in unemployment announced this week although it is small. Any reduction is welcome. However, the underlying trend is still upwards.
Unemployment in Wales cannot be understood in isolation from the trends in the United Kingdom. I recognise at once that the fortunes of the Welsh economy are inextricably linked with those of the United Kingdom. Different parts of the United Kingdom are interdependent and the level of demand in Wales depends on the overall economic climate in the United Kingdom. All that points to the fact that Wales is in urgent need of an active regional policy.
The Conservative Party endorsed that view in its 1979 election manifesto. Page 5 states:
An effective and stable regional policy will be needed for the forseeable future.
Action speaks louder than words. No sooner had the Conservative Party been returned to office than it systematically proceeded to undermine regional policy by downgrading our structure of development districts and, in many cases, wiping out development areas.
In addition, in many Welsh districts Government training centres have been closed, although retraining facilities have never been more urgently needed, I acknowledge what is being done, but the closure of those training centres is a disaster. Thus, a serious blow has been struck against regional policy. I recognise that regional policy cannot succeed against a background of declining opportunities in the United Kingdom as a whole. Injustice between the regions can be dealt with only by a significant expansion of the national economy and an increase in public expenditure.
In that context it is interesting to note the growing measure of agreement among economists and other leading figures—which is reported daily in the press—that sums of no less then £5 billion should be considered. On 7 December The Times reported that the former chief economic adviser to the Treasury, Sir Brian Hopkins, proposed a £6 billion package to increase demand and to create new jobs. Incidentally, Sir Brian is now a professor at Cardiff university. His view was confirmed in that same report by two other professors.
There can be little argument but that cuts in public spending have contributed towards the recession. Wales has been hit harder because, with two-thirds of Welsh jobs dependent on public expenditure, directly or indirectly, the cuts have been a savage blow.
This morning I received a letter from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, which said:
Unemployment in construction is running at about 40 per cent. in the region, with South Wales one of the worst hit parts of the country.
I emphasise that in order to counterbalance the rosy picture that was painted by the Secretary of State. I have referred to blows that have been struck against regional policy.
I refer briefly to another blow that has been struck in Wales by Government cuts in higher education. We heard very little about this from the Secretary of State. When educational facilities are lost to children and young people they can never be regained. That is a loss to a generation and a loss for a lifetime. That is why education should have one of the highest priorities in Government expenditure. A lengthy period of increasing financial constraint has been overshadowed by cuts of considerable severity, which have had a particularly grievous effect upon the University of Wales and all its constituent colleges. This has resulted in serious alterations in many departments and a reduction in the number of students.
The long-term future of Britain is threatened by Government plans to cut back on university education. All college principals, without exception, in Wales, as elsewhere, condemn the situation. I can well understand the fierce reaction of students. They also have grounds for protest when they find that their grants are limited to an increase of 4 per cent. this year, which is less than half the rate of inflation. No one argues that students should be kept in a state of luxury, but their prospects of gaining part-time employment, which they used to get in the past, are negligible. The real level of the student grant is the lowest for 20 years. Students therefore have to rely upon the grant, no more and no less, and what, if anything, their parents can afford.
Britain needs more, not fewer, graduates. The constraints on student numbers, with a policy of running down the higher education system, will cause untold harm to society. Above all, the effects on research, which is vital to our future, are particularly damaging.
That opinion was confirmed by none other than Dr. Parkes, the chairman of the University Grants Committee, when he gave evidence on 23 July last year to the Select Committee on Educ4tion, Science and Arts on the question of university funding. In reply to a question on the effect of Government policy he said:
I do not find myself able to predict what it will do over the next decade, because I do not know what this or any future Government will do in terms of funding. What I can say is that in the short term it will do serious damage to that education, and also (I wish you would keep this in mind) to the country's research base.
These are significant words.
With isolated exceptions, the universites are the only institutions that the country possesses for performing fundamental research. In applied research, where industry has taken advantage of what has been done in the universities, hundreds of millions of pounds have been

earned by the exploitation of inventions and by using the skilled assistance provided by universities to solve specific problems.
In that context I can speak with some pride on the position of the University of Swansea. I declare my connection as chairman of the university council. The Royal Society Research Unit which has been established there has recorded significant achievements especially in spectrometry. In addition, the department of zoology has performed notable work in conservation and pollution problems, particularly in Swansea bay and the Barry estuary. Apart from the scientific interest, research in a social sense has resulted in a notable contribution towards the rehabilitation of the Swansea valley project.
I warn the Government that their inflexible attitude, which is criticised even by some of their own supporters, is not only causing profound confusion in education and in industry, but is causing the most profound despair in local government throughout our towns and cities. In addition, the most profound bitterness is felt by our people, young and old. The Government are being urged by both sides of the House to adopt a more reasonable and sensible policy of reflation and investment. In the interests of the people in this country, and in Wales in particular, and in the interests of saving our economy from its desperate condition, I urge the Government to think again.

Sir Anthony Meyer: One of the pleasures of having a Welsh debate on the Floor of the House is that we can have a contribution from the hon. Member for Gower (Dr. Davies) who normally has to maintain a benign silence as Chairman of the Grand Committee. We are always pleased to hear from him. Like him, I propose to speak mainly about unemployment. I must observe that during this important debate on Welsh affairs the Benches on the Labour side are conspicuously naked. For most of the time Conservative Members have outnumbered the Labour Back Benchers even with the regrettable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) who, as we all know, is sick and to whom we all send our good wishes for a speedy recovery.
While I am in this vein, may I also take the opportunity of wishing many happy returns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? I hope that he will be celebrating many more birthdays either at that office or at some even more senior office to which his great talents undoubtedly entitle him. Lest any hon. Member is going to call out "sycophant" I may point out that there was a period not many months ago when my right hon. Friend was not on speaking terms with me.
My constituents are worried about jobs. Those who have jobs worry that they may lose them, particularly if they are over 40. Schoolchildren and their parents worry that they may not get jobs for many years and that by the time they do they will have lost the will to work. My constituents are worried about how they are going to pay their bills for the rates, the water rate, gas, electricity and, on top of all that, the taxman.
What my constituents do not worry about is that some other people have holiday cottages. Still less do they worry that the police are making an effort to catch the yobbos who are burning down the cottages, even if that means putting listening devices in telephone boxes.
People in my constituency do not worry that the poor, downtrodden trade unions are going to be made to behave


more like the rest of us by the Government's Employment Bill. Many of them think that the £1 million, which the unions will spend on fighting the Bill and on preventing trade unionists from having the right to vote on whether they should go on strike or on the election of their officials, could be better used to provide new jobs.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) that the Welsh people do not sleep any better in their beds in the knowledge that Wales has been declared a nuclear-free zone. I suspect that they believe that neither President Reagan nor Mr. Brezhnev are attentive readers of the Welsh press. I am sure that the Welsh people feel that the declaration is sanctimonious hypocrisy. They will want to know how they were consulted on what has been so pompously announced in their names. It is jobs and the difficulty of making ends meet that worry them, unless they belong to a powerful union or receive an index-linked pension.
The majority of the people of Wales blame the Common Market for everything that has gone wrong. Heaven knows, enough has gone wrong. However, when they stop to think they know that none of our problems would be solved, and most would be made worse, if we pulled out.
If the Welsh people do not blame the Common Market they blame the Government, but they know and admit that life would be much worse under a Labour Government, particularly with the Labour Party in its present state. The Welsh people have been having a lovely dream recently that under the SDP/Liberal alliance everything will suddenly become much better without anything being given up—except, of course, other people's luxuries and the things that no one wants such as party squabbles or confrontations. This dream is best described by the good lady in my constituency who told me that it was important to get out of the Common Market and to bring back capital and corporal punishment and that was why she wanted Roy Jenkins in No. 10.
In common with my constituents, I worry about jobs and about those who are having ever greater difficulty in making ends meet. I refer not only to the very poor, because they receive means-tested benefits, but to those who are slightly above the poverty line and who are frequently worse off than those below it—the elderly, widows with small occupational pensions, and people with incomes from their life savings, after many years of hard work and thrift.
I know that the Government's policies are more likely to bring new jobs and to raise the living standards of the new poor than are the policies of any other party. I know that it is important that they stick to those policies under mounting pressure to let inflation rip and so destroy millions more jobs and place the poor at an even greater disadvantage. However, I wish to high heaven that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, would find the words and the tone of voice to convince us that they really care about the hardships that are being suffered by individuals as the nation battles grimly along the road to self-respect.
No one has fought harder in the interests of the people of Wales, in and out of Cabinet, in Europe and in Japan, than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, I sometimes wish that his briskness and efficiency did not blind so many people to his real compassion.
In giving unsolicited advice to my youngers and betters, I offer this further piece of advice—vicariously, through my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It comes from many of my hon. Friends, including some who have Welsh constituencies. We cannot judge now how much, if any, reflation he can introduce in his Budget. We have taken note of the Prime Minister's pre-emptive strike on Tuesday. However, whatever he intends to do in reducing the amount that would otherwise be taken out of the economy by the taxman, we want to ensure that all of it goes to stimulating real jobs or into easing the plight of those slightly above the poverty line. Whatever pledges the Government give to cut taxes, those who agree with me do not believe that one penny should go towards lightening the tax burden on those lucky enougl, to be in work, the motorists, smokers, drinkers, or any other religious sect.
The next subject of inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs will be the effect of the European Economic Community on Wales. I can think of no more appropriate subject, or one where the great mass of detailed evidence that will be accumulated will be more valuable. There is plenty of hard information about the effect of the EEC on the United Kingdon and we can argue one way or the other in the full knowledge of the facts. However, when considering the EEC and Wales we can do little more than extrapolate information from the United Kingdom figures, or use such anecdotal evidence as is available on a totally random basis.
Despite the lack of detailed statistics about the EEC and Wales, certain basic principles surely hold good for Wales as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall deal with only two of the principles before speaking briefly on what is an awkward issue in the context of the EEC and Wales—the threat to jobs from EEC competition in such goods as washing machines—before concluding on v. hat to me is the overriding consideration, which is ' the importance of EEC membership for attracting new jobs.
I shall speak only briefly on agriculture because the subject has been so expertly covered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh. There are few farmers who want the United Kingdom to leave the EEC. Their concern is to keep the protection that the common agricultural policy has given them, which is so much more dependable in present circumstances than deficiency payments would be. The sums required for deficiency payments are horrifying according even to the Labour Party's calculations.
I share the hopes of farmers that we shall resist any revaluation of the green pound. However, I do not go as far as some of my hon. Friends, who would have us reject an otherwise favourable settlement of the EEC budgetary problem if it involved even the smallest revaluation.
According to a reply given to me on 11 February, Wales has received no less than £833 million since 1973 from the Common Market, half of which has been in outright grants. There is no doubt that we shall be getting more help. It will come at a time when Government help for regions such as Wales is coming under heavier fire from areas such as the West Midlands. However, the regions would get more help if only the EEC had a more effective regional policy.
I wish that I could say that a British Government of whatever party had done more to bring about a more effective European regional policy. There has been plenty


of support for one from the European Parliament, but the Treasury's bigoted determination to keep down the size of the total EEC budget, even if a larger total budget would be to the net advantage of the United Kingdom, coupled with the apparent determination of British Governments of either party to slap down the European Parliament the moment it shows any sign of doing anything effective—that is a sorry commentary on the hopes that were expressed that Britain's main contribution to the Community would be to strengthen its parliamentary institutions—have frustrated any attempt to get an effective European regional policy. Successive British Governments, including the present Govenment, have made a grave mistake.
I am well aware of the arguments against the Common Market. They are usually put forward extremely noisily by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) who, unusually, is not in his place.

Mr. Alec Jones: I should explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) is in Committee dealing with the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that the hon. Gentleman would have been present if that had been possible. However, it is only fair that I meet the argument that I know he would put if he were in his place. The argument turns on the effect on Welsh jobs, especially at Hoover, of imports from the Common Market, especially goods such as washing machines.
There is a widely held misconception—it is more widely held than even I suspected—that the Common Market has produced a hideously adverse balance of trade. Our trade with the rest of the EEC is in surplus. It is true that if oil is removed from the balance—I cannot see why it should be—the balance of trade in manufactures is in the red.
The Common Market is by far our largest trading partner. When we consider the deficit as a proportion of the total trade, a different picture emerges. On that basis our deficit with the rest of the Community is one-third of what it is with the United States and one-twelth of what it is with Japan. That still leaves a problem for firms such as Hoover. It is true that Italian washing machines have been arriving here at prices that we cannot possibly match and of a quality that is equal to or better than that of our products. Is that the fault of the Common Market?
It is often alleged that the Italians are cheating. Of course, everybody knows that all the other member States are cheating except us. Try telling that to some of the poultry farmers. We are more likely to be able to stop cheating if we are in the Common Market and can take them to the court. If we leave the Common Market my understanding is that the Labour Party still wants to have industrial free trade with Europe. If they get it—which quite frankly is unlikely—how will we succeed in keeping Italian washing machines out? Maybe I have it wrong and the Labour Party wants to stop the world and get off. It may have no choice. It is hard to see any group of nations, or a single nation, wanting to enter into any binding commitment with us if we break all our solemn undertakings and pull out of the EEC.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I feel that the hon. Gentleman is giving a wrong impression of the facts and

figures of our trading position. We know that we are importing large quantities of manufactured goods from West Germany. Those imports are being paid for by precious North Sea oil which will put people out of work in manufacturing industries.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I believe that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has a shaky grasp of how international trade works. We import goods from Germany and we export to them. We import goods from the United States and export to them. That all means jobs. If the balance is too adverse it is true that jobs are lost. The size of the trade matters most. Germany and the United States are pretty well on all fours in terms of the proportion of their deficits to total trade. Germany is the country in the EEC with which we have the largest deficit.
Maybe I have the Labour Party all wrong; maybe it do intend to try and step off the globe. In that case what will happen to inward investment? Every reputable economist who has looked at the matter sees that as the decisive argument for staying in Europe. I leave aside the overwhelming political arguments of peace and political stability. They have no peculiarly Welsh dimension. With Britain in the Common Market—that is the point my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made—American, Japanese and, maybe one day, Arab investors will set up factories in Wales so that they can sell their products tariff-free throughout Europe, the world's largest single market. Why else do Mitel, Sony and National Panasonic come to Wales? Why should Nissan Datsun consider coming to the United Kingdom, perhaps to Wales, or better still to North Wales? Those hon. Members who hope to get those 2,000 jobs in or near their constituencies like the hon. Members for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and Neath (Mr. Coleman) have become rather quiet lately on the urgency of leaving the EEC. I do not blame them. The Wales TUC seems to be developing a decent reticence at last.
I look forward keenly to questioning Mr. George Wright when he appears before the Select Committee because we all know that the only way to achieve investment and to provide those desperately needed new jobs, without imposing still further cuts in living standards which are already squeezed to the bone, is to persuade outside firms to manufacture in Wales. They will come only if they can use Wales as a base to sell the goods not just to 50 million British customers but to 300 million Europeans.
Compared with that we have Plaid Cymru's interesting suggestion that Welsh capital only should be allowed to invest in Wales. That is not much sillier than the Labour Party's present stance.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on that?

Sir Anthony Meyer: I do not have the advantage of a full account of all Plaid Cymru's deliberations. The reports I read in the press were that employment in Wales should be financed by Welsh capital.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman should read more carefully.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me the full text. It may be even more revealing.
I have many misgivings about some aspects of the Government's policy and the presentation of those policies. I believe that the State has a bigger role to play


in creating real jobs than most Ministers are prepared to admit. I am quite sure that the Government are going in the right direction and that they alone have the courage to stick to their course. I hope it brings to them and the Welsh people the success that such courage deserves.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The Secretary of State began his speech by warmly approving the setting up of the Select Committee and by implication rebuking the preoccupation of the official Opposition, when they were in Government, with what he called constitutional change. I want to talk about the Welsh economy and I feel that the key to the relative weakness of that economy lies in constitutional change.
I should like to remind the House of the answer given to me by the right hon. Gentleman a couple of months ago when I asked about the loss of male jobs in Wales over the past 20 years. 1 asked for the number of men employed at a suitably convenient date in each of the years 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1981. The answer was extraordinary. I will not trot out all the figures but almost as many male jobs were lost between 1960 and 1970 as between 1970 and 1981. Bearing in mind that the period 1960 to 1970 was one of world economic boom, that fact is remarkable and it influences my reception of some of the extravagant speeches that have been made on this side of the House by certain members of the official Opposition.
Secondly, I want to quote Mr. George Wright, the general secretary of the Wales TUC, speaking at the annual conference of the Wales TUC in 1976 when the devolution issue was beginning to develop. He said:
We are seeking a Wales where we can have growth from within. We are not carrying a begging bowl into the next century
That looks woefully over-optimistic in the light of the 100,000 male jobs lost in the past two decades. That loss has not suddenly happened with the advent of the present Government. I am not trying to defend them because I believe that their policies in many respects are wrong. We are dealing with something much more long-term and deeply seated than some right hon. and hon. Gentleman on this side seem to think.
Since the industrial revolution, Wales traditionally has been concerned with primary industries, mining, quarrying and agriculture and now oil refining. Welsh industry is predominantly in the primary sector and only in certain instances in the secondary sector. Certainly it is not in the tertiary and quaternary sectors of the economy. That is one of its great problems. At the end of the 1950s coal stocks were developing. In 1958 and 1959 there were stocks all over the country. Collieries were closing in 1960 and it is clear that the coal industry faced a bleak future. There was a loss of 100,000 jobs. During those two decades farming lost 35,000 jobs and steel lost 20,000. By 1965 one could see the dark clouds on the horizon for the steel industry. An enormous problem was beginning to develop during the world economic boom 16, 17 and 18 years ago.
The permanent secretary at the Welsh Office asked a member of the Welsh Economic Council in 1966—a professor of economics at University College of Wales in Aberystwyth, who was professionally involved in trying to estimate future employment prospects—whether he would undertake that task as part of his membership. Professor Edward Nevin agreed to do that and produced

a highly technical economic report. He forecast in 1967 that by 1971—only four years ahead; he did not have a superlative crystal ball—
there would be a loss by 1971 of 59,000 male jobs in Wales".
That report was pigeon-holed and the White Paper for which it was intended—"Wales: The Way Ahead"—was published in 1967. One must remember that by this time unemployment was a key ingredient in Welsh affairs.
The White Paper rather blandly stated that the anticipated loss of male jobs would be 25,000. However, it stated that that figure would be reduced to 15,000 by the regional employment premium and that those unemployed people would be catered for by the jobs attracted into Wales by various grants as part of the so-called "regional policy". The response of central Government was regional policy and we now constantly hear that slogan.
The loss of jobs in 1975 was 57,000. Professor Nevin overestimated by something under 4 per cent. and was wrong by about 2,000. We are concerned with Welsh affairs and it is difficult to discuss the Welsh economy meaningfully or constructively on its own because it is so enmeshed within the British economy. My remarks have nothing to do with the absolute position of the Welsh economy. I am not talking about the misfortunes that have befallen this country, for whatever reason, but trying to consider Wales in relation to Britain as a whole.
I was struck by the Secretary of State's remark that Wales was now poised to make a relative improvement. I presume he meant that when the British economy stilts making an upturn, Wales, relative to the rest of the United Kingdom, will show an improvement. That is a pretty big claim and, of course, I naturally—and desperately—hope that he is correct. However, I wonder whether he appreciates the magnitude of his remarks.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the factories that the Welsh Development Agency is building and said that he hoped to create 6,000 jobs, with another 6,000 in the pipeline. We are referring, of course, to long-term trends that have existed for 20 years. I might have referred to the mass emigration of the 1920s and 1930s; these are very long-term and deep-seated trends. I admired the skill of the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), when they masterfully papered over the matter and presented a picture grossly at variance with the present realities. They hardly dealt with the real issues at stake.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's analysis, but the point that came through his remarks was that over 20 years or more—as I earlier said—the old primary industries were run down. We are moving into a new period and our relative position during the recession did not decline—we did slightly less badly than the rest of the United Kingdom during the downturn—because we have now moved into a period for which we prepared the infrastructure. We are attracting the new manufacturing industries and the whole base of our economy is altering and becoming far more diversified. We have some extremely attractive locations for growth in the new industries.

Mr. Ellis: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. We have changed the base of the Welsh economy.
The White Paper of 1975 does not, unfortunately, deal with Wales but with Scotland, the North of England and Wales. It stated that in the decade between 1964 and 1974 these three regions lost between them 370,000 jobs and,


at the same time, there was an increase of 378,000 jobs lost in the South-East and Midlands of England. The job losses from separate industries were detailed. Surprisingly, of those 370,000, about 120,000 were lost in coal mining, about 80,000 in manufacturing and the remainder in service industries. I hope that the Secretary of State is right I am not trying to make a party point but simply emphasising that he is being a little facile. There are much deeper issues at stake.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman also take on board in his analysis the fact that de-skilling is occurring in the Welsh labour force; for example, in engineering? That industry's work force has substantially contracted and the sort of investment that the hon. Gentleman is so keen on attracting is mainly assembly line work for women. That is not because the multinationals wish to employ women but because they pay them lower wages.

Mr. Ellis: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why I keep referring to male jobs.
Another example of what is happening in the long term—an aspect on which some hon. Members are concerned—are the school results in Wales and allegations that 0 and A—level results compare badly with those in England.
Various reasons are suggested for the poor results, but I fear that they have nothing to do with the education service. I am not an expert on education but, on the face of it, the Welsh educational provision is broadly similar to the English. It worries me that after two or three generations of emigration from Wales the native inherent stock is becoming a little suspect.
I know some people involved in sociological work who are concerned about education. That aspect, although there is inadequate evidence, may confirm the deep-seated trends. Many eminent authorities on economics, such as Gunnar Myrdahl, Hirschman, Perroux and the book written by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), point out that the concept of a few grants, tax allowances and employment premiums is cosmetic and will not tackle the problem. Paraphrasing Gunnar Myrdahl, he said that rich areas need poor areas alongside them for their sustenance. I am not an economist and am in no position to argue the merits of the economics but I am deeply concerned at his view.
When I was at school, my sixth form class contained 20 people and only two of them now live Wales. The rest had to leave. I am concerned that professional economists make such observations. After 50 years of regional policy, when the relative deprivation is no better than it was at the start, one must begin to question whether the Government's attempts are anything but cosmetic. One tells the Government of the day that their policies are not working, however much money they pump in—whether it is £50 million, £80 million or £100 million. The poor areas are not catching up with the rich areas and, when asked to slow down growth in the rich areas, the Government's answer is "Certainly not." The Government reply that the well-being of a poor area depends on the well-being of the whole country and that the well-being of the whole country depends upon the well-being of the rich

area. The analysis that people such as myself increasingly make is that the problem for successive British Governments has been intractable.
I can give anecdotal evidence of economic policies and their results in Wales over the years. I am tired of giving what is a classic illustration not of the quantitative but of the qualitative issues involved in unemployment. I refer to highly skilled employment in scientific research. In 1972, Wales produced 5.1 per cent. of all the United Kingdom graduates in the physical and biological sciences, roughly proportional to the Welsh population of the United Kingdom. Half these people are employed in jobs that are not tied to localities. They can go anywhere. One of the attractions of science is the chance to carry out research. I am referring not to postgraduate research in universities but to full-time professional careers in research.
The Government have 99 research establishments employing 13,850 graduates. Not one is located in Wales. There are 38 industrial research associations. Not one is located in Wales. There are 26 nationalised industry research associations. Not one is located in Wales. This issue goes much deeper than economic. The whole question of constitutional change is involved. I recall the debate on devolution. I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) that there was no question of Wales being separated from the United Kingdom. When, during those debates, an hon Member argued strongly against the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, I intervened to say that the hon. Gentleman's case was that an Assembly would somehow constrain Wales in its approaches to Whitehall for charity. The basic argument was that the establishment of a Welsh Assembly would mean that Wales could no longer expect this or that grant.
We are therefore in deep water. We are not talking about some little technicality of economics. This is a profound issue. Few regional policies in the world have succeeded. The only success in Europe has been West Berlin. It is on the periphery. With the exception of its age structure, West Berlin has compared favourably for a long time with the rest of West Germany. The only unfavourable comparison is the age of its population. People, at the age of 65, are, allowed through the Berlin wall. 
The first essential is political clout. West Berlin has prospered because, for political reasons, it had to prosper.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has written off regional policy pretty comprehensively. I am left wondering what are the proposals of the SDP-Liberal alliance to deal with the industrial and economic problems of Wales.

Mr. Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I am saying. I have not written off regional policy. It has done some good work. It is, however, toying with a deep problem. We shall, in the first instance, shift the perspective from economics to politics. The issue is one of politics. The proposal for a Welsh Assembly was defeated ultimately in the House because some hon. Members who live in the North-East-1 am not criticising them—saw the threat to the North-East of the power of a Scottish Assembly. This is tacitly to accept the case that, given the political clout, we might begin to achieve something.
When we come to power—that time is not far away—we shall not concentrate simply on the "cosmetics" of this or that grant or the building of this or that road. One talks of roads. For nearly a century, the Rhondda valley was the Abu Dhabi of the time, spewing out wealth for the world. Today, the Rhondda valley is approached by a cart track, compared to the wealth it has produced. These are the issues that we shall tackle when we come to power.

Mr. Ian Grist: The House always enjoys the thoughtful discourses of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who is rather a rogue elephant. I wonder sometimes not only whether his colleagues are unaware of what he intends to say but whether he himself knows, when he begins speaking, where his thinking will lead him. His speech reminds hon. Members, however, that we are approaching the anniversary of the referendum on devolution for Wales. The proposal was defeated convincingly, not by Labour Members representing the North-East of England. but by the people of Wales themselves. The only party that showed that it understood the innermost feelings and loyalties of the peoples of Wales was the party that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I represent.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked hon. Members to speak up for Wales and to proclaim its benefits, its beauties, its virtues, its opportunities and its advantages. That we should never cease to do. The simple fact is that Wales has all those attractions in abundance. Far from Wales being located on the periphery, it is worth remembering that the corridor of the M4 linking South-East England and South Wales brings the high technology companies that we seek. Those companies, I remind the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), have settled in some density in and around his constituency. They would never have done so if Britain had not been a member of the EEC. The damage to employment in the steelworks in his constituency would have occurred whether Britain was inside or outside the EEC. The same applies to East Moors in Cardiff and to Ebbw Vale up the valleys from his constituency.
The attraction of the Chemical Bank to Wales was a fine example of the advantages that we can offer. I should like, in passing, to thank my right hon. Friend for the urban aid that he has granted to the Cardiff university industry group. That sort of group, combining with industry and business around the university campuses, has proved valuable in the United States and in Europe. There is clearly scope for its development in this country. A case can perhaps be made for rearranging our tax affairs to give academics a greater stake in the businesses that they may be able to help to establish or build up.
All hon. Members are waiting for the Budget. This debate is sandwiched between the debate instigated by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and the Budget itself. I look for a neutral Budget. If any boost is to be given over and above the indexing of tax rates, I hope to see housing benefit. This is perhaps the quickest and most effective boost that could be given.
In the last few days interest rates have begun to edge down. If that trend continues it will give a greater boost to industry than almost anything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do. It would also be anti-inflationary. The same cannot be argued for most of the alternative boosts to the economy urged upon the Government. If interest

rates go down, perhaps in unison with those of our EEC partners, it is possible that the pound will continue to drift slowly further down as it has done in the course of the last year. If we can then keep our incomes down, the international competitiveness of our economy will be formidable. That is where the profits, investment and jobs will come from.
Hon. Members will remember that in the autumn of 1978 the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr.Callaghan), warned that incomes had to be kept to an increase of no more than 5 per cent. and that if they rose more than that unemployment would rise sharply. Yet incomes rose by 15 per cent, and we were on the roller-coaster, already suffering from massively rising unemployment when we hit the world recession coming in the other way. That is why we are where we are now—that, combined with the inefficiency and the lack of competitiveness that we built up over many years, meant that we were in no position, unfortunately, to save the jobs that we all wanted.
The hon. Member for Gower (Dr. Davies) put forward the obvious argument—which we heard in the 1960s—that Wales depended on public sector jobs and that we needed to get more of them because that was the way to safeguard jobs. It is the curse of our national economy that we hive so many public sector jobs and the private sector has taken the brunt of the rundown. That is where the jobs have been lost and the pay restrained. The public sector has barely been cut back compared with the private sector, and yet it has the protected pensions and the pay rises.
For instance, in the coal industry this year there have been rises of around 10 per cent. in a loss-making industry. There are not many loss-making private industries that could give a pay rise of 10 per cent. this year and a promised pension on the basis that the National Coal Board can. Nevertheless, private industry buys its coal or its electricity which is 70 or 80 per cent. made by coal and it will have to find the money to pay for those wages rises. Private industry may have to shed jobs so that miners and others can keep their jobs. That is the truth of the matter.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to nominate which particular jobs in the public sector in Wales he wants to chop?

Mr. Grist: I was primarily talking about restraining pay demands. If that is done:, the demands on jobs will not be the same. If it is not, and if our economy continues on the downward path, there will be nothing sacred about schoolteachers, miners, steel workers, health workers, nurses or hospitals, because if the country does not make the money we cannot pay for any of them. That is the plain truth.
We are being urged in certain directions by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Gower said that we needed to spend £5,000 million. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) wants us to spend £6,000 million and when pressed to say where he would find the money he said that he would borrow it, which is what the right hon. Member for Rhonda (Mr. Jones) suggested. This weekend the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) said that he wants us to spend £8,000 million in the first year. That is not the highest figure—the TUC wants £12,000 million. Where is all this money to come from?
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said at a public rally at the weekend that the Labour Party, if elected,


would engage in a massive increase in public spending. It would use interest rates, exchange controls and exchange reserves—I should think that it would—to bring the pound back to a competitive level. What that means is that controls would be slammed on to stop a runaway slide in the pound, which would hoick up the inflation rate to catastrophic levels.
The right hon. Member went on to say that the Labour Party would use price controls, subsidies and indirect tax reduction to restrain inflation. Yet those things do not restrain inflation, because subsidies have to be paid for, indirect tax reductions have to be paid for and price controls reduce the capacity of firms to invest, so that has to be paid for. It is all done on more and more borrowing.
What the right hon. Gentleman did not say—perhaps the hon. Member for Newport will be disappointed—was that we would have import restrictions but I have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) say that the Labour Party would bring in import controls. He certainly said that when he was with me on a television programme a fortnight ago. He said that the Labour Party would slam on import controls and thereby exit from the Common Market. We would have import controls, with presumably no action being taken against us by the markets to which we export, Germany being our biggest at the moment.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale realised that some people might put in for wage increases of a damaging level, but as nobody these days is allowed to talk about income policy he had a further plan for a "national economic assessment", a relation of "solemn and binding", presumably, between the Government and the trade unions. This, he claimed, would ensure that workers could
achieve better and more secure advances in living standards without exposing our plan for full employment to the hazards that might threaten it if inflation began to accelerate.
He noticed that it just might. There would be an undertaking between the Labour Government and the unions to restrain demands for higher incomes.
Does anybody believe that? Is that not precisely the programme that we went through with the last Labour Government? Have Labour hon. Members not learnt from their last period in office? Is that not what strained relations between the Left and Right wings of the party with the Right wing understanding common sense, being able to add up and understand economic policies, and the Left wing refusing to do so? Is that not precisely what the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) mentioned in his recent book—the educative process that the Labour Party had to go through, with a Treasury Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and will again have to answer his Back Benchers and explain to them that two and two make four and that if there were overspending one would have to go to the bankers and the IMF and cut back expenditure more savagely than this Government have ever done.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda found himself in the ping-pong argument about who built roads for Wales. Both sides have been in and out of Government fast enough now for all of us to announce roads, start roads and open roads which the other party had announced when in Government. However, when we went to the IMF road building slowed up. This Government have a record road

programme. We are opening roads which perhaps could and should have been opened by the Labour Government. That is what happens when a Government spend madly.
We all have a worry over the standards of education. It has been referred to before. The Welsh Select Committee has examined the question briefly and perhaps will look at it again. We ought to expect more from our education than we get at the moment. We are spending more per pupil, we have the best pupil-teacher ratio that we have ever had, we have increased the school leaving age—perhaps a good thing, perhaps not—we have more people staying on after the official school leaving age, more children are taking exams and more people passing exams. That is fine.
On that basis—and this is a national problem—our children ought to be doing better than they are doing. Within our ambit, why is it that in Wales the figures are even worse than they are nationally. Even at A-levels, the top end of schooling, we are slipping. Until now, in Wales, the bright boy or girl—particularly the bright boy—received a fine education. Those pupils were given every encouragement to get on. The not so bright were destined for the land, the steelworks, or the pits and did not have to be too clever. Now there are people turning up at the mines whom the mines do not want because they cannot read the safety notices.
Wales used to have a fine record in its grammar schools, but apparently now our achievement of the top A-levels is slipping below the English level. Cockroft and other reports show that our numeracy, our capacity in maths, seems to be below the national average, for no clear reason. There is no basis in genetics or anything else that I know why pupils in Wales should not be good at mathematics. I know that my hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate has taken a close interest in this subject, and I hope that he will be able to do something about it.
The hon. Member for Wrexham told us about the 20 people in the sixth form, only two of whom now work in Wales. I wonder what the other 18 do. It would seem that if someone is good at speaking, he will go into politics, the trade unions, acting, the law, teaching, preaching, or anything that we in this House do. That is what Welshmen are famous for, but they are not so good at founding industries or famous for using their hands. The one person who was good at that was a Mr. Matthews, but he had to go to Canada to make his fortune. We are pleased that he is coming back and bringing jobs back to Wales. He is the man who founded Mitel. It is surely a pity that we cannot do more for him and his like in their younger days in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct, and if there is a deterioration in education standards, is it not all the more remarkable that more and more school teachers are joining the dole queue and that there are fewer and fewer places in our universities? Is there not a contradiction in what the hon. Gentleman sees as lacking and the way in which the Government propose to tackle the problem?

Mr. Grist: I said earlier that there are more teachers per pupil now than there have ever been, so the trouble is not a shortage of teachers. Perhaps it is what teachers teach, what parents and relatives put over, what motivates youngsters, and what aspirations they have. Perhaps in the past aspirations in Wales have not been great. There has


been a greater readiness to believe that a low level of achievement in life was all that one could expect. Is it not time to get over to the youngsters of today, at a time of high technology, that the world is their oyster? We should try to get that message over.
If we do that, we shall not have debates, particularly Welsh debates, when we moan about what is happening in Wales. We have every right to be the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, at the very least. If we use our common sense and instil into our youngsters an ambition to succeed and a lack of readiness to accept second best, perhaps the disappointing examination results will be overcome and in 20 or 30 years our heirs in this place will say "That was the black period, but now we are out of it. We have modern industry and high education. We are at the peak of the United Kingdom in a high-achieving European Community".

Mr. Leo Abse: I am sorely tempted to follow many of the speeches that have been made today. Certainly I was sorely tempted to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who gave the Secretary of State for Wales an instruction kit about how to present Conservatism with a human face. I should have liked to add to that contribution, had time permitted.
I am tempted also to follow what was said by both the hon. Member for Flint, West and the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), when they mocked the actions of county councils in Wales in declaring Wales a nuclear-free area. I sometimes wonder whether they appreciate how deeply rooted is the tradition of pacifism in the Principality from Henry Richards, to Keir Hardie, to today. If any lesson is to be learnt from such a unanimous expression of opinion by people who normally engage in the daily tasks of local government, it is that, at a time when billions of pounds are needed to put the British economy on its feet, it is absurd to contemplate spending billions of pounds on Trident.
Wales spoke clearly to the Government, and it is unwise of Conservative Back Benchers to close the Secretary of State's ears to a genuine repulsion on the part of the people of Wales who want to make sure that the next generation is not the last generation. I am unimpressed by people who mock the reaction of our county councils, and at the same time identify Soviet aggression, while remaining silent about the terrible events taking place in Central America as a result of the follies of Reagan. If the Government and their Welsh Back Benchers believe that they are assisting this country by tying themselves to the American chariot, I am thankful that we are hearing the saner voices of more humble men in the more humble assemblies in the Welsh county councils.—[Interruption]. I am beginning to be tempted, but I resist that temptation. Instead, I shall take up the theme introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh, who expressed the opinion held by many people in Wales that if the Welsh fourth channel fails, it will mean the ultimate destruction of the Welsh language. That is his view, and I respect it. I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but I know that a valiant effort has been made to arrest the decline of the language by the funding of the Welsh fourth channel.
The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, referred to the work of the Select Committee on broadcasting in the Welsh language. He described the Select Committee's report as a thorough and perceptive appraisal of Welsh

language broadcasting. He said that the report contained comments and suggestions of immediate relevance to the establishment of the Welsh fourth channel. I doubt whether those of us who sat on the Select Committee appreciated how immediate and relevant in some respects its recommendations were. A failure to follow three of its recommendations—although many were accepted—has already caused a shadow to fall on our hopes that Wales would gain high-quality, apolitical, Welsh language programmes capable of gaining substantial audiences.
I shall remind the House of the three recommendations that were not implemented. Then I shall attempt to tabulate some of the immediate consequences following their non-implementation. First, it will be recalled that the Committee, while welcoming the opportunity to increase the diversity of sources of Welsh language television programmes, and using the independent sector, clearly insisted that the Welsh fourth channel should recognise both the greater financial obligations of Harlech Television and the quality of the programmes offered. The Committee knew that the bulk of Welsh language programmes would compete with no fewer than three English language channels in the peak viewing programmes. Quality is all. If it is not attained, the expectations of those who claim and hope that the Welsh fourth channel will save the language will be utterly dashed.
Secondly, the Select Committee, understanding the tens of millions of pounds that would be within the patronage of the Welsh fourth channel authority, believed it essential that an advisory committee should be formed whose responsibility would be related to the totality of. the channel's output—that coming from HTV, from the BBC and from independent producers. The Select Committee gave pungent reasons why that advisory body should consist of both Welsh and non-Welsh speakers. We did not accept that the necessary invigilation could possibly be done by existing bodies whose formal competence would extend clearly to only part of the output, not only leading inevitably to a fragmentation in approach but leaving the untried and untested independent producers totally free from any invigilation whatsoever.
Sir Goronwy Daniel, with his customary eloquence, sought to persuade us. He said:
We do not want to set up a large empire of our own which is going to be duplicated in the work of other people.
Happily, the Committee was not seduced. It asked "What other people?" There are no other people so far as the independent producers are concerned. The existing advisory committees of the IBA and the BBC have not even the most tenuous connection with them.
Like Sir Goronwy, the Select Committee also did not want to set up empires; but nor did it wish to set up emperors who would be free from constraints and would have unlimited powers of patronage as great as those o f the Medicis or the Borgias. Indeed, I would hesitate to cast Sir Goronwy Daniel in the unlikely role of Lorenzo the Magnificent or Mr. Owen Edwards as a Cesare Borgia. However, as the Select Committee affirmed, the court of Sophia Close is dangerously incestuous. In fact. that was the language that we used in our report.
That is why in the third and final recommendation we called for the reconstituting of the Welsh fourth channel authority. That was rejected by the Secretary of State. He said:


My opinion was reinforced by the Welsh fourth channel claim that remarkable progress
those are their words—
had been made and there were very clear advantages in terms of decision and implementation.
That claim looks pretty sick today. On the eve of the launching of the fourth channel, after months of negotiation, no contract has been signed between HTV, the intended main supplier of programmes to the Welsh fourth channel, and the authority. The air is thick, not with detailed announcements of the programmes that Wales can be expected to enjoy, but with bitter and severe recriminations. Mr. Owen Edwards told the Western Mail on Monday that there was no absence of goodwill and no friction between the two sides. HTV's managing director refused to comment until negotiations are complete. Unhappily, Mr. Ron Wordley's silence on this occasion is more eloquent than Mr. Owen Edwards' over-determined affirmation.
Everyone in the media in Wales knows that, lamentably, there is heavy trouble. Public life, which includes media life, is lived in a glasshouse in Wales. There are no kept secrets in Welsh public life. We are, praise be, the most open society in Europe.
The substance of the argument, although not the only one, is that although HTV, as it made clear to the Select Committee, is ready to keep to its commitment to supply extra hours of Welsh language programmes, and to make clear its readiness to build up to making those programmes so that they are enriched,and enhanced to the standards which the Welsh authority rightly demands the Welsh authority appears to have embarked on a deliberate course of activating and encouraging independent producers who are now intended to supply not the two hours a week, as all members of the Select Committee will recall was canvassed before us, but at least double that amount.
The belief was so widespread that the Welsh authority was more than ready to offer a helping hand to eager independent producers, in England as well as in Wales, that now at least a dozen independent producers are on the predatory trail. Understandably, competent and important Welsh-speaking staff looking for more—I understand the temptations—are flowing from HTV and BBC Wales. Twenty-four have recently left HTV and 18 have recently quit the BBC. On the sidelines stands the Welsh Development Agency, which is clearly ready to give help to the media entrepreneurs who so happily find Wales awash with public money.
Every day seems to bring me further news of puzzling handouts. Understandably, Welsh-speaking actors are joining in the bonanza, because inexplicably those who work for independent producers are to be paid £320 a week out of Welsh fourth channel funds, which is more than twice as much as the agreed regional rate paid by HTV and other regional companies to actors and artistes.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: They are being paid the Equity rate.

Mr. Abse: It is the agreed rate sanctioned by the Welsh authority. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) immediately wishes to take up the cudgels on behalf of the independent television companies——

Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not taking up the cudgels of those within any independent television company. I simply say that any colleagues of mine or any other hon. Member who are in the acting profession, which suffers from high unemployment, have a right to expect the Equity rate when they find work.

Mr. Abse: Even if one considers the Equity rates applying to network programmes, £320 a week is far too high and the hon. Gentleman should know it.
I suspect that some of the hon. Gentleman's hopes are my fears and the fears of many who sat on the Select Committee. Why has this unexpected configuration come into existence? It is a picture of the programming of the Welsh channel that was certainly not presented to the Select Committee and was not anticipated when the Select Committee insisted on the need for sufficient funds to be given to the Welsh fourth channel authority to ensure that the three-year experiment had a fair run. If it is because the Welsh authority found that HTV was asking for too much money, why has it spurned our Committee's recommendation that it should check HTV's costs by giving ITV contractors other than HTV an opportunity to quote for Welsh language programmes? To the credit of the IBA, in response to our report it said that it would be glad to assist. How convincing is the suggestion that HTV is the real cause of the difficulties when the fact is that if HTV profited unduly, the IBA would undoubtedly intervene to lift HTV's fourth channel subscriptions disproportionately at the first annual review?
We had before us the tough men of the representative body of the other independent television companies, who wished to subvent the Welsh programme by £10 million. I do not have the slightest doubt that the purpose to which the £24 million total is to be put will be minutely and critically dissected. Those tough men would not let HTV get away with their money, and no one would blame them for that.
What is the game? Why has the Welsh fourth channel embarked upon a policy that would lead to it paying out to independent producers not what was originally contemplated, but at least £3 million more for programmes, bringing the total amount to £8 million? That was never presented to the Select Committee. Although I do not doubt that some of the independent productions will be innovatory and of quality, all of us know that outside broadcasting needs processing, editing and sophisticating. The underestimation of post-production work leads to the dangers of poor quality work, which could lead to trouble for the fourth channel. There are also other dangers.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) put a clear question to Mr. Alwyn Roberts, which caused the BBC national governor for Wales to reply:
Let me say that I accept entirely your statement that where language and culture become political matters there is a tendency to identify the user of a language with the political viewpoint associated with it … Is there a connection between language, culture and politics? The answer must clearly and unequivocably be 'Yes'.
When there are such dangers and when we spent so much time to make certain that the problems of balance were clearly understood, if we are now to permit independent companies to spawn and be financed, it is serious that those companies should be allowed to go on their way with no invigilating and advisory body in which we can feel confident. New efforts are being made by the


Welsh authority to make certain that the programmes that are being presented are completely free, as they should be, of political bias.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I think that he is being less than fair to the authority, which has a formidable task in bringing the new service into operation. He appears to ascribe to it motives for which there is no evidence. I have recently discussed these matters with the IBA, the authority and the representatives of HTV. It is not in the least surprising that there are tough negotiations. One of the problems is that HTV cannot for two years provide the resources needed by the new channel. Therefore, the new channel is bound to make use of independent producers. It should not be a matter of worry and anxiety that we shall have sources of programming on our television service other than HTV. I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman thinks that only HTV can provide the service needed by the Welsh people.

Mr. Abse: On the contrary, we urged the Welsh authority to check on the costs of HTV by offering programmes to other independent television companies. Every reason was given against taking up the offer in their response, although the IBA made it clear that it was prepared to help and co-operate.
The real risks are coming about because the time for independent television companies will be doubled. Those companies are being formed with amazing rapidity. They are not being funded on the basis of only a few years in operation by the WDA. It is not intended that they should be set up for only a short time.
The Secretary of State understandably may have been lulled into the belief that, in view of the apparent speed with which the authority was operating at the beginning, there was no need to set up advisory committees or to reconstitute the authority. I understand the Secretary of State being lulled by that. Perhaps the Select Committee does not have completely the right answer on how the new development will be invigilated. Unless it is invigilated, I have no doubt that throughout Wales there will be a feeling that a gravy train exists, that people are getting on it and that it is travelling towards an absence of control over political bias.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has launched what can only be regarded as an attack on the authority. I have personally investigated the situation recently. It is right that one of the reasons for the delay in reaching the settlement is that the chairman, who was rightly conscious of the fact that the contracts would be closely examined by Select Committees in the House of Commons, is taking a great deal of trouble to see that the cost of the contract offered by HTV is reasonable. It is not a matter for complaint that he should be negotiating toughly with potential contractors. The House should praise him. I do not attach such a sense of fear and anxiety to the possibility of independent producers being used. They may have independent talents and may provide jobs in many parts of Wales, where they will be greatly welcomed.

Mr. Abse: The Secretary of State's response will be noted. I have no doubt that the television companies will be able to make their own responses to what he has said. Instead of the atmosphere in which the fourth channel will

be launched on 1 March being one in which everyone will be committed to trying to save the language and working together, the main supplier and the Welsh authority will be at arm's length because they have been unable to re ach a conclusion. I hope that they will reach a conclusion, but I also hope that a brake is applied to ensure that there is not an impression abroad that millions of pounds will go into the hands of entrepreneurs who are politically uncontrolled or insufficiently invigilated.
All of us have one goal. which is to ensure that, if the language can be saved, everything must be done to help the fourth channel. I am unimpressed by the fact that at this stage of the game no negotiations have been concluded. The Secretary of State for Wales may in the long run regret his impetuous intervention as more complaints and more concern arise about the money washing about and people take advantage of the new state of affairs.

Mr. Tom Hooson: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in pursuing that last subject studied by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.
I shall make a brief comment on the Welsh water authority, because of the news that the Secretary of State gave us today. The news that we have heard over the past month about the losses of the Welsh water authority and the projected increases in water charges for the coming year have underlined the wisdom of the Secretary of State in tackling the problem of the management of the authority. It is remarkable to think back to the opposition by the official Opposition to steps to tackle the problems of the Welsh water authority. I know that there will be good will from both sides of the House towards the new chairman, Mr. John Jones. We shall look for a considerable injection of his management skill into the Welsh water authority.
At the end of a distinguished career in public service we owe to Mr. Haydn Rees, the present chairman of the Welsh water authority, the advice that we should be moving towards a much smaller board structure. He has done a great deal to identify the management needs for the future. It is important that this distinguished public servant of Wales, who had a long record in local government in Clwyd before moving to the Welsh water authority, should receive a tribute from the House.
It is appropriate that most of the debate has dealt with the economy and industry. I, too, shall make a few comments in that direction. There is no question but that unemployment has been the biggest problem facing Wales for many years. We are coping with the worst world recession since the 1930s. I regret that on the whole there is a sterile response from the official Opposition. When they are asked what they would do which would be different from the policies that increased unemployment in Wales from 38,000 to 83,000 under the Labour Government, we hear a long recitation of sterile suggestions, all concentrating on a policy of inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) made that clear. Nothing is more certain to increase unemployment than policies of inflation.
In addition to the short-sighted emotion which is the substitute for economic thought on the Opposition Benches, there is the policy of pulling out of the Common


Market. That, too, may be expected to reduce employment prospects in Wales, which relies so much on inward investment for jobs.
Any creation of new employment is bound to be a slow process. I endorse many of the points made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) in that context. He is right to point to the relatively modest number of jobs which can be produced in a short time from developments such as advance factories. It is a remarkable achievement that 43 of the new factory buildings are concentrated in Wales. That is a firm recognition of the size of the Welsh problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves credit for the support that he has given to the Welsh agencies. The 1.2 million sq ft of Welsh Development Agency factory space let over nine months is an impressive achievement. The 14,000 jobs that have been created in five years are to be welcomed. I am completely ungrudging in recognising that this scheme was started by the Labour Government. I do not believe in the ping-pong game of who takes credit for initiating each scheme.
In Mid-Wales, 5,000 jobs have been created over three years by the Development Board for Rural Wales. That body has certainly justified its existence. A great deal depends on a mature response from trade union leaders to ensure that people do not price themselves out of jobs. I refer to the largest factory rented from the Development Board for Rural Wales—the Smiths factory in Ystradgynlais. The need for jobs there is great and Smiths will create an influx of jobs in the coming year.
How far those jobs will prove to be permanent depends largely on cordial relations and an improvement in productivity, because the type of motor accessory produced at Ystradgynlais depends on the most vigorous pricing and marketing policy and on being competitive. Therefore, we depend very much on the maturity of trade union leaders and workers to recognise that it is possible to lose jobs much more quickly than it is to create them.
Another important element in attracting jobs to Wales is to make sure that we take full advantage of the funds obtainable from the European Community. About £800 million has already come from various forms of European aid, and that is very welcome. It is appropriate that the next subject for intensive study by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs should be that of Wales' relationship to the European Community. Members of the Select Committee, other hon. Members and many people in Wales have much to learn about the workings of the Community.
Goodness knows, it has been a frustrating operation in which to take part and my faith has frequently waivered. That is as far as I can go to comfort the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes). Despite all the frustrations of the Community, the horrors of being out of it would be far more serious. Opposition Members should bear in mind the careful assessment by Ivor Richard, a former colleague of theirs, that there would be a loss of 50,000 jobs in Wales if the Labour Party succeeded in pulling Britain out of the European Community.
When making statements about the danger of job losses, it is important to identify where those losses may occur. The Western Mail of 25 January reported a survey conducted among 508 American electronics companies.
That is precisely the category of manufacturing to which Wales looks for jobs. There is a great need to find jobs which occupy the brain, as they are the jobs of the future.
The survey, which was reported in the "Electronics Location File", included the following question and highly significant replies:
If Britain left the Common Market (EEC), how would it, in your opinion, affect her suitability as a European base for an American electronics company?


No longer suitable
27·2 percent. (138 companies)


Less suitable
33·9 percent. (172 companies)


Remain the same
24·6 percent. (125 companies)


More suitable
4·1 per cent.(21 companies)"


 Those figures are clear evidence of how those American businesses view the prospect of Britain leaving the Common Market.
When the same companies were asked for their preferred location now, the United Kingdom was first, followed by Germany and the Republic of Ireland. When asked for their preferences if Britain were no longer in the Common Market, Britain slipped to third. That is a specific example showing why we have every reason to be keen to stay in the EEC.
The improvement of communications in Wales has received only light treatment today. An inadequate communications system has long been one of the great drawbacks for Wales. Yet that ought to be an area in which Wales has a considerable advantage over, for example, the North of England or Scotland, as it is closer to the greater population areas. Considerable progress has been made in communications during the past 20 years. It was a Conservative Government who started the M4, but again I shall not indulge in the ping-pong game of who takes the credit for these projects.
It is impressive that the real expenditure on the roads programme in Wales is now higher than it has ever been. I give my wholehearted support to the Government's sense of priorities. In laying stress on the development of the road structure, especially in aiding smaller road programmes, they are emphasising the roads that lead to the factories. It is useless providing modern plush factories if access to them is via a bumpy road. Success depends on good roads as well as space for work.
In that context, I am sorry that in Mid-Wales one can hardly speak of any rail service at all. Moreover, in the review that British Rail will have to make in the aftermath of the recent irresponsible labour troubles, I am highly apprehensive about the future of the small Mid-Wales and Cambrian lines. I hope that my fears are unfounded, but those lines are highly marginal by any criteria. They have been supported by successive Governments in recognition of a certain contribution to the fabric of rural society. Nevertheless, at a time of great difficulty for British Rail, they are bound to receive very hard scrutiny. Although that is a worrying aspect of communications, 90 per cent. of communications in Wales depend upon the road network.
I wish briefly to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) in his comments on agriculture, which is the chief industry in large areas of Wales. The news has been gradually improving. The annual review shows a 14 per cent. increase in farm incomes, but this only brings farmers back to where they were five or six years ago. They have faced very difficult years since the mid-1970s, as is shown by the fact that borrowing by farmers is now three times the 1975 level. The trend is good, but there is still much to be achieved.
The Government deserve credit for the successful negotiation of the sheep regime, which has contributed substantially to the improvement in Welsh farm incomes. The Farmers Weekly of 5 February stated:
Improved returns from sheep boosted incomes on many Welsh farms during 1980–81, according to the latest farm management survey by Aberystwyth University.
On livestock rearing farms using better quality land, the average net farm income on a sample of 72 holdings was up from £3756 to £5120…
On poorer land livestock rearing farms, the improvement was even more dramatic. The average net farm income was up from £3228 to £7840 and this represented an increase from £26 an effective hectare to £71 a hectare.
That is very encouraging, but it leaves a considerable problem of imbalance on the hill farms of Wales. For a number of years there has been a steady decline in the size of the beef herds. A sensible agricultural policy requires rather more profitability on the beef side. One cannot look entirely to sheep. Both must contribute to the strength of the farm economy. There are good signs of progress in this direction, but the news is less good for cereals. In arable farming, which is dominant in much of England, the improvement in income last year was 13 per cent., whereas in livestock, which is the basic Welsh category, the improvement was a more modest 6 per cent.
I hope that the Minister will hold out some hope today about the review of marginal agricultural land, a subject which has been moving slowly. It was brought to life at the very end of the Labour Government, who had slept on it for several years. It has implications for access to Community funds, so if we are to derive maximum benefit from the Community we must work out how the category of disadvantaged agricultural land can be extended.
Reference has been made to the need to maintain the present level of the green pound. Another factor is the great importance of maintaining fair play in what is supposed to be a common market. That means taking vigorous action to prevent discriminatory payments by the French Government aimed only at supporting French farmers. This is of great importance in maintaining a sense of fairness among farmers throughout the Community.
I wish to refer to one or two concerns in Mid-Wales. We have been promised a review of the status of Mid-Wales as an assisted area. The review must take place very shortly, because we shall lose intermediate status at the end of July. I must tell the Secretary of State that there is grave concern in Mid-Wales about our ability to attract industrial investment if allowances are not available for expenditure on plant and machinery and on buildings. There is also great anxiety that if we do not have assisted area status we shall also fail to qualify for European Community funds. That aspect, too, must be considered.
I look forward to a very early review, and I should welcome any information that the Minister can give today on when the formal procedures will begin. I am already talking to the Development Board for Rural Wales and to my own county council, Powys, about this, and I know that other councils will be anxious to make representations.
Finally, I must express disappointment in the Government's performance so far in the handling of the rate support grant now that it is in the hands of Welsh Office Ministers. If anything is disciminatory against the finances of rural counties, it is the thoroughly inadequate allowance for the sparsity factor in population. Many costs are undoubtedly greater in counties with small populations

than in the densely populated areas. No county has a more acute interest in this than Powys, where the population density is only 0.2 persons per hectare. Even in the other rural counties of Dyfed and. Gwynedd, the figure is closer to 0.6. Therefore, although this is a matter of concern for all rural counties in Wales, concern in Powys is especially acute. I am disappointed and aggrieved that no effort has yet been made to improve the allowance for the sparsity factor, and we in Powys shall be very discontented if the Welsh Office continues to be as complacent about this as it seems to have been so far.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall not be tempted to go into all the subjects that have been raised. 1 am sure that I shall have the opportunity elsewhere to reply to the cold war rhetoric of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan). Nor shall I be drawn 'alto responding to the baseless allegations, motivated entirely by headline seeking, made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). The media are always interested in themselves, so speeches about the media are always well reported. I am sure that the hon. Member had arranged the whole episode. I am also sure that the fourth channel authority is well able to respond for itself and will do so when it launches its new programme properly next Monday.
I shall not speak tonight on the Welsh economy or on the social consequences of unemployment that I outlined when I spoke in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). What was then said about the social consequences of unemployment has since been demonstrated even more clearly. The Welsh Office cannot respond by a change of policy. The crisis it is creating for itself in social services can only get worse.
I shall not speak on regional policy, because I have spoken on that subject many times. However, I am glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) has now joined the ranks of those of us who are critical of regional policy. It is significant that we have not heard how the SDP-Liberal alliance would face up to the problems of Wales.
The regional problems of Wales are not just linked to those of the United Kingdom, but are part of an international crisis of unevenly developed regions. In many respects the Welsh economy is over-developed. It is a highly developed, sophisticated, specialised economy and that is part of its problem. Our concern is that that economy comes increasingly under the control not of London, or even of Brussels, but of multi-national capital and a Government who are determined to reduce public sector jobs. The result is an even greater degree of outride control over the economy and far less control by the working people of Wales, who actually produce the wealth of that economy. It is always they who are called upon to make sacrifices by Conservative Members, as if the future development of industry depended entirely on low wages.
I want to speak about education, which has been referred to by several hon. Members. I do so not in a spirit of political partisanship, but in the spirit of my previous incarnation, because I used to be a teacher. I am deeply concerned about the recent statistics that show in detail what many of us have feared over the years—that measured objectively the standard of education in Wales is declining. That is a regular theme of Conservative politicians.
I am an avid reader of all the news releases from Conservative Central Office. Last Friday the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), went to the annual dinner of the Conservative Association in Caerphilly. He talked about the high regard that Wales had always had for education and the great Welsh tradition of learning and excellence. If he had only read more carefully the surveys produced by the assessment of performance unit he would have seen that all the talk of the magnificent Welsh education system is mythology. The House must be prepared to undermine and destroy that myth. References to the quality of the Welsh education system mask the performance of that system. My remarks are directed not merely at the Minister—we have a Minister who is respected in education circles in Wales because of his experience—but at the Welsh joint education committee, at Her Majesty's inspectorate in Wales, at the Welsh teaching unions and at all parents and teachers. We should face up to the reality that we do not now have an effective and egalitarian education system.
Two recent reports show that that system needs to be fundamentally reviewed. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he is prepared to consider such intervention. I refer not only to expenditure, but to the fact that we must face up to the practices of schools, the way in which they are run, the ethos of schools and their educational objectives.
There are about 220 comprehensive schools in Wales. One problem is that we never have enough information about how each school operates. I have had to generalise, and I have not referred to specific schools. I can think of several Welsh comprehensives that are doing magnificent work in difficult circumstances. I think, for example, of the comprehensive at Treorci in the middle of a relatively deprived area in the Rhondda. It has developed a curriculum in Welsh studies and so on, and I should like to see many other schools develop that. I think also of denominational and Roman Catholic schools in Wales and many of the Welsh-medium schools, where the commitment and work undertaken by teachers must be admired.
Hon Members should consider the latest inspectorate report on the fourth and fifth years, which shows that one-third of "less able" pupils—I do not like that term—who do not perform at the highest academic level are absent from school in any one week. No more than 60 per cent. of CSE and non-examination pupils have an overall level of attendance. Absenteeism has become so bad that the inspectorate has had to recommend that teachers should take the register not only at the beginning of the day, but at the beginning of every lesson.
However, we must go beyond superficial analyses of what used to be called truancy and assertions that parents should get their kids to school, and ask why children reject the schooling on offer. The answer lies in the emphasis that is still placed on the more able pupils. I echo what has been said about the way that we have concentrated on the more academic—I perhaps use that word in a slightly pejorative sense—aspect of education. We have tended to concentrate on the old grammar tradition. We have not been able to provide a comprehensive system in terms of content.
That problem does not affect only Wales. The recent report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts contains evidence from the National Union of Teachers which highlights the fact that the school system in England and Wales tends to be examination led, particularly in the fourth and fifth year.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the old grammar school tradition has been maintained in Wales in the so-called bilingual or Welsh schools? They are really back-door grammar schools. They bear the most guilt for maintaining the old tradition. However, genuine secondary schools are trying to act comprehensively.

Mr. Thomas: I cannot for a moment accept that. Some of the Welsh-medium schools are to be criticised just as much as other secondary schools for their policies of setting, streaming and grouping. The hon. Gentleman cannot pick out one aspect and say that that is the problem. The last thing that I want is an elitist form of Welsh-medium education. The statistics for Mid-Glamorgan—and increasingly for South Glamorgan—show that the majority of pupils in Welsh-speaking education come from working class backgrounds and do not speak Welsh at home. Parents and children select Welsh-medium education not for elitist reasons, but because they want to become a part of their cultural and linguistic heritage. Who will deny them that?
Therefore, it is essential to consider the way in which schooling operates and to ask why children absent themselves from school. We should ask why the figures for absenteeism are so appalling. We must add to the figures for absenteeism those for non-certification. Today 25 per cent. of students leave school in Wales with no formal qualifications. That is an increase. When we talk about the pupil-teacher ratio improving we must realise that at the same time the proportion of those leaving without qualifications has increased from 23 per cent. to over 25 per cent.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is right. If there is enormous absenteeism, concentrated largely among the low achievers, and if there is a record pupil-teacher ratio, that must mean that those pupils who stay at school have an exceptional pupil-teacher ratio. In that case, why are we not getting even better results? Why are we still getting such poor results? I am bemused.

Mr. Thomas: I shall come to that. The paradox is that on the latest figures the A-level results have improved. Those who enter are doing slightly better, but the crucial issue is that at the same time the number who do not enter is also increasing. So we have a repeat of the grammar-secondary modern divide, the bilateral divide, within comprehensive schools. That is the crux of the problem.
I quoted a figure of 25 per cent. leaving school with no qualifications. In the same period the English figure fell to 12 per cent. while the Welsh figure went up. We exchanged questions and answers about this previously in the course of Welsh questions. But we have not yet faced up to the causes. It cannot be written off in terms of economic environment or class background. Goodness knows, we have plenty of indicators of relative deprivation in Wales.
The most surprising statistic is that there is an important difference between what happens at 16 and what happens


at 11. The 1972 "From Birth to Seven" survey shows that Welsh children scored well above the English mean on general ability, were substantially above the English mean on arithmetical ability, and were only slightly below the English mean on reading. The assessment of performance unit primary survey on language performance shows that Welsh children at 11 have slightly higher mean writing and reading scores than those of England. The APU tests of age groups of examinees and non-examinees at 15 show that children in Wales had the worst performance at mathematics of any British region. This is confirmed in Cockcroft. Out of the five regions examined, the mean scores of Wales are the lowest or equal lowest on 13 of the 15 APU scales. Not only have we had fewer examination passes because fewer pupils entered, but on the APU data fewer pupils have been capable of passing. Those APU figures, and there are more to come, indicate that we are deliberately disabling our pupils at secondary schools. My major point is that we must consider this urgently. In some contexts this is a matter of resources. However, it is not just resources, but the actual practice of schools themselves. I do not want to turn this into a party political discussion on the Labour control of certain local education authorities in Wales, although it might be argued that because of the kind of policies pursued by the Labour Party in some authorities there has been less attention to the development of schools than there should have been.
I want to stress that we have had a deliberate perpetuation of the worst forms of grammar school provision and the concentration on a particular area of achievement in terms of the pupil profile, as it were. As a result we have created a system that is nothing more than a bilateral system on one campus. The sooner we face up to this in terms of readjusting the system, the better for all the children in Wales.
It is not simply a matter of examining individual schools. We had the Loosemore study by the Schools Council, but that concentrated on a small segment of the 220 secondary schools. We must consider the issue in depth. The Minister should at the minimum have discussions such as the previous Minister had when teachers, parents, the inspectorate, the Welsh Office and educationists came together to thrash out the issues.
We have to go beyond that and find ways of making the curriculum development and assessment procedures in Wales meet the crisis in the education system. There is a responsibility on the Welsh joint education committee to give priority to assessing why its policies have failed. It is a matter not just for the Minister, but for the WJEC. The Welsh schools inspectorate should become more self-critical and far more aggressive in its work.
The heads of schools should bring the teachers together within each school and consider whether they are providing the right kind of education, the right kind of curriculum and the right kind of assessment. They should ask themselves what they are doing through their own performance as an education community. The governors and the whole of the community of each school should also be involved in the process. This is at least as crucial as the issue of parental choice and information about schools. The schools themselves should reassess their performance, but we have to go beyond that and have a national reassessment of the role of Welsh education.
For the last time this evening may I praise the Minister? I read carefully speeches by Education Ministers, The speech which the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the

hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts), made last Monday to the inspectorate at Ferryside is the kind of speech that ought to be covered properly in the Welsh media, but was not. There are other speeches, !;tich as the one at Pontypool, which are over-covered in terms of a rational editorial approach. In his speech at Ferryside the Minister faced up to the situation. I should like to quote his speech to him:
We have much to be proud of in the schools in Wales but I'wonder whether we have not lost the edge we used to believe we had over the rest of the country. Certainly many people think so. It is worrying to see accumulating evidence of underachievement amongst pupils".
The Minister went on to refer to the achievements of the Mold conference in 1978 and then to challenge the inspectorate to face up to the issues. I do not want to quote more of his speech back to him, but I hope that he will repeat some of these things in the House tonight and that he can take an initiative on Welsh education that some of his predecessors should have taken.

Dr. Roger Thomas: I will not follow the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) in his discussion on education. He made a thoughtful speech and one well worth listening to.
On 9 March, if the Chancellor runs true to form, there will be introduced further measures to widen the gap between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. I have great sympathy for Tory Members frantically nursing marginal seats who are trying to fashion a strategy to distance themselves as much as possible from the actions of the Chancellor, which will be more characteristic of the Japanese heritage than of the Anglo-Saxon one of stiffening the upper lip.
There is little doubt that a pay and prices policy, sustained and fostered by public understanding and appreciation of its fairness, is an integral part of our approach to putting Britain right and on its feet again. In a recent economic debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said that that will never be achieved without the conscious planning of our own resources to meet our needs. Yet how can such a worthy, desirable and succinct expression of our needs be contemplated while wages are left to the jungle of free collective bargaining? We pray for order, yet so many are prepared to leave the fair distribution of earnings to be subjected to utter disorder.
The Secretary of State made great play of the money that is chanelled into the building of factories and the record number of inquiries that prospective, and possibly genuinely interested, industrialists have made about the occupancy of those factories. Equally, one cannot but, be depressed about sites being earmarked and factories built where there are already several factories which are either unoccupied or which have been only a temporary source of employment, the companies having found the going too hard and the economic climate too harsh. Many factories have had to close after valiant efforts to keep goring. The dedication of the business men who ran them is not in question. Genuine success is so scarce that it stands out like a sore thumb in the general tranquillity and pacific condition of our economic stagnation.
The level of economic activity for 1982-83 will be lower than the previous year. At Welsh Question Time last week I quoted from The Sunday Times, which stated that


Britain's industrial activity had peaked last autumn. I feel sorry for the Secretary of State that he does not have time to read The Sunday Times or perhaps the money to buy it. There will be even less chance of his doing so now because last week the price was increased by 5p—14 per cent.—at a stroke.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Surely the real problem is the heavy overmanning. Is that not one symptom of the troubles that British industry has had to face?

Dr. Thomas: The Sunday Times is not exactly a supporter of the economic policy being advanced by the Opposition.
One of the most disappointing of the Welsh Office's reactions of the past year was its response to the report of the joint working group on health education in Wales. It would be difficult to find a response so myopic and at the same time so irresponsible and insensitive, but once Ministers insisted that its terms of reference included the proviso that existing financial constraints be completely overriding, it was like loading lead weights to the water shoes of a cross-Channel swimmer.
I have great respect for all members of the working party for they boldly stated on the second page of the report—I am glad to say that the report was bilingual—that their terms of reference had had a real restraining effect upon their work. They all longed for a more radical and far-reaching approach to help matters in Wales, and it appears that more radical changes were the deep-down desire of many besides the one gentleman who produced the minority report, whose brave wisdom had been ignored.
The utter imbalance of the distribution of health education staff in Wales was noted by the previous Administration as far back as 1977. The previous Labour Government made definite recommendations that each health authority should have a minimum complement of personnel specially trained in health education and directly responsible to the area medical officer.
In Wales there are special needs of dental health education, for we are an area in which far too much radical and not enough conservative dentistry is carried out. This is about the only area that I can think of in which policies for Wales are not conservative enough.
There was a call for a mechanism of initiative and coordination specific for Wales, and the working party made a series of recommendations. I concur with the working party's statement that members of the caring professions are not aware of the full range of services that are available about which they should be advising patients and clients.
The working party stated that the leadership and encouragement of which the Welsh Office is capable should be considerably strengthened. Will the Minister list some of the highly desirable innovations that are contained in the report, or are they like job opportunities in Wales, which are jammed in the pipeline?
In a very brave speech recently, which Government supporters found great difficulty in listening to, let alone accepting, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) advised the Chancellor to ignore the pessimistic advice of his advisers because 9 March would be his last chance to restore credibility in most sectors of our

manufacturing base, and to understand that after three years of Tory Administration the work force had realised what a different world it found itself in.
The hon. Member for Chippenham referred to Lord Shaftesbury. Had he been able to comment upon the miserly and near-detestable manner in which this Administration are handling the long-term unemployed, the weak and the needy, he would probably have said that the Tory Party had utterly lost its way and that compassion had been cast aside. However, the months are passing and the time will come when the electorate will treat the Tory Party and its schizophrenic leadership with similar disdain. 
I agree with some of the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) made about the fourth Welsh channel. His critical but fully justified comments appeared this week in the Western Mail. I wrote in similar terms three weeks previously in the only Welsh weekly newspaper which has a widespread circulation throughout the Principality. Of course, all my allegations were denied by the fourth channel powers-that-be. They say that they have taken upon themselves grave responsibilities. It appears that the independent producers have emerged on top and that they are running the fourth channel. We hear talk of domination by small intercommunicated groups, and this we cannot deny. It appears that the policy of the Welsh fourth channel is, "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr.Bryant Godman Irvine): Mr. Delwyn Williams.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This cannot be right. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) has only recently entered the Chamber. I have been in my place for four and a half hours.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: I have been in the Chamber for two and a half hours, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has always been the custom to call Members from each side of the House alternatively.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The day before yesterday this issue was debated on a point of order and Mr. Speaker ruled that hon. Members would be expected to stay in the Chamber to listen to the debate, especially to the Front Bench replies. I think that your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should be drawn to the fact that you have called an hon. Member who has not been in the Chamber for long and who has listened to hardly any of the debate.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: I was here from the beginning of the debate until approximately 6.30 pm. I was very disappointed to hear the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) make such a disappointing speech, even by his own standards. I thought I should hear a constructive plan to put right the lack of youth employment in Wales. I thought we would be told where some of the £8 billion would be spent in Wales. I wonder whether he can tell the young people who came to the House today where he will get the £8 billion. Will he get it from some banker? I think not. Will he go to the International Monetary Fund? I think that is perhaps his plan.
If you are a bank manager you look at your client's previous record before you advance him any money, and on the strength of his party's record, the right hon. Gentleman would be lucky to get a Barclaycard for £50, let alone £8 billion. If he does not get the money from the International Monetary Fund will he look to the 85 per cent. of working people to raise the money? If he does, how does he think they will react to hearing that they must pay an extra 12p in the £ direct taxation? Will he tell the truth about the sham of £8 billion he is to get out of the sky? The International Monetary Fund will not give it to a party which lacks credit.
When it comes to youth employment we should tell young people the truth. They should go into Europe and look at young people in Germany and France. I know the truth hurts but you may as well listen to the truth. If you go to France, Germany and America you will find young people suffering as our young people do. If you believe that there is no compassion for those young people on this side of the House you are very much mistaken. But let those young people look at the vast ranks of Socialist Members—all four of them—here today to show their concern for the young people of Wales.
Let the young people ask the question: what would have been their job prospects if the Opposition had been in control over the past two years, running to the IMF to borrow more money for their generation to repay in the next 15 or 20 years? We are concerned with creating real jobs and prospects for young people. We are building their future.
I will tell you some home truths. In 1976 it was your party who produced a so-called secret working document on the subject.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no party.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was the party of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that produced a so-called secret document which forecast 21/2 million unemployed people by 1981. How right he was. He knew the facts but sought to conceal them. You sought to conceal the facts to such an extent that that squalid forecast appeared in The Observer. It was based on facts. It said that there was a baby boom in 1963 and there was. One million young people of that baby boom are now looking for work. That fact was known then and it is known now. You concealed the facts that the trade union—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On every occasion that I have mentioned "you" I have been immediately brought to order. Why is it that the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) has been given licence, after he has been missing for three hours and 10 minutes from the Chamber, repeatedly to refer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, without being brought to order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman to one misdemeanour. I thought that was enough for the moment.

Mr. Williams: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant you no discourtesy, and I expected that you gave me some licence because of my relative inexperience compared to the hon. Member for Ogmore. I am grateful.
The Opposition support the trade union movement, which has been the greatest destroyer of youth employment by asking for and getting inflated wages. Youth wages have risen by 440 per cent. since 1970. I know that the Opposition do not like facts. Those wages have risen on the insistence of the trade union movement, backed by the Opposition. The Opposition have helped to price young people out of the market by making the average wage in this country twice what it is in Europe. When the Opposition talk to unemployed people, let them confess their part in the shameful con trick that has been played on them.
It is self-evident that automation has also played its part and will increase. Although manufacturing industries have been hit recently, service industries will be hit as word processors take away the jobs of many clerks and typists. There is no point in anyone telling young people that jobs will be there. They manifestly will not be there. We should be sharing the work out. We should say to the trade union movement that we should work together, share the work and achieve early retirement. Fewer married women should be working, especially those with children under the age of seven. Any woman with children under seven has a duty to look after them and instil discipline into them.
Many new jobs are to be found in Wales if we look for them. For instance, 25,000 new jobs will be generated in the tourist industry in the near future. [Interruption.] If one studied the facts and were helpful towards young people instead of being obstructive——

Mr. Alec Jones: rose——

Mr. Williams: We have had no help from the Opposition in this debate and no constructive suggestions; I certainly would not expect anything constructive from the right hon. Member for Rhondda—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I certainly will not give way. I suggest the hon. Gentleman goes back to the north-west fringes.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) belongs to a party that militates against the tourist industry in Wales. By his inflammatory language he indirectly encourages people to carry on in an anti-social manner which discourages English tourists. Welsh tourism suffers. English people do not want to go to Wales because their houses may be burnt down or their cars damaged by vandals because they have a Union Jack on them and road signs are damaged. The Labour Party is the greatest destroyer of youth employment in Wales, as the right hon. Member for Rhondda well knows.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I have been involved for the past eight years as the Member of Parliament for Merioneth in trying to secure funds for many tourism projects, some of which have been mentioned this afternoon, and I am anxious that the tourist industry is developed to provide secure and permanent employment. I have certainly spoken out against low wages in the tourist industry and my position is well on record. If the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) had been here for most of the debate he would know that many constructive points were made. Many more would be made if he were not rabbiting on now.

Mr. Williams: I suspect that the hon. Member does more rabbiting during the course of the day than any poacher in Powys.
The Secretary of State was kind enough to say that 6,500 new jobs had been provided in Mid-Wales and I am grateful to him for that statement, as I am for his continued support of industry in Mid-Wales.
It is with a sense of genuine national shame that I mention the declaration of Wales as a nuclear-free zone. As a nation, are we now saying that we rely on our compatriots in Berkshire and Cambridgeshire for national security? Are we now saying that we rely on the Scots, who were the hosts of the Holy Loch base, and that we lack the guts to make our contribution to the defence of this nation? Will the Russians recognise Wales as something special? I do not believe they will. The people of Wales will continue to play their patriotic and courageous role, as they have always done, in the defence of our nation.
The role of the Welsh people in the defence of Britain stretches from the heroes with a record number of Victoria Crosses at Rorke's Drift, to the hills of Korea. For this nation to be seen as trying to get out of its moral duty to the rest of the country is something that I abhor and that I hope the local authorities will live to regret.
Labour Members who pretend to welcome this development as a step towards some sort of unilateral disarmament are hypocrites because, when they were in power, they consistently supported a nuclear deterrent. They even went so far as to spend £1 billion on the Chevaline project to make Polaris more effective. That is what they do when in Government but, when in Opposition, they advance a different policy to the people of Wales. That policy will not wash again.
A serious consequence of the declaration of a nuclear-free zone in Wales is the demoralising effect that it will have on the morale and organisation of our civil defence officers and administrators in the Principality. The ostrich mentality is a great handicap to our emergency services. Such services in Wales could be vital in a time of nuclear war, if that sad event ever occurs. In such event, Mid-Wales must be ready to receive the Birmingham overspill. The local authorities have passed the resolutions and demoralised their civil defence organisers and emergency services. I only hope that they will rapidly redress that situation.
I now turn to a more parochial issue which is of great importance, not just to Wales, but to the rest of the United Kingdom—the vexed question of the Welsh schoolteacher, Wayne Williams. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for causing £43,000 of damage to public property. Unbelievably, a completely unconstitutional appeals committee of the Powys county council, comprising only five people, reinstated him. The Secretary of State has seen fit today to issue to him a formal grave warning as to his future conduct. Regrettably, the Secretary of State could not prevent him from teaching in Wales.
I fully appreciate the dilemma of the Secretary of State for Education; he had a difficult task in balancing the situation. He had to decide whether to make that man a martyr or to lower the education standards by allowing him to return to the teaching profession. He also had to decide whether it was his duty, morally or otherwise, to interfere with the affairs of a democratically elected local authority. It was no easy decision. However, I wholeheartedly accept the decision the Secretary of State made.
However, I wonder what the future position will be. I only hope that the High Court hearing will allow the full county council—all 54 members—to vote on this issue. They have so far manifestly not debated it or had the opportunity to vote on it.
When the county council appointed Mr. Williams as a teacher it was not told that he had eight previous criminal convictions. The European Court of Human Rights today approved the principle that there should be respect for the philosophical convictions of parents if they did not want their children subjected to corporal punishment. The same court would respect the philosophical conviction of those parents not to have a teacher in charge of their children who has at least nine criminal convictions, a man who has been to prison at least twice and once to a detention centre.
Returning to local affairs in Mid-Wales, it would be remiss of me if I did not remind the Secretary of State that he should continue the intermediate area status for Mid-Wales. It would be disastrous if that area ever lost it. It would lose its selective grants from the Welsh Office, tourist grants and rights to claim most European grants. The latter two side effects would be a drastic disadvantage to my area.
It was argued that if Telford were given that status and my area was not, or vice versa, it would create an imbalance. I do not accept that argument because, for example, Telford would not lose tourist grants. Not many people would visit Telford on a sunny afternoon to see its delights.
When the Welsh Select Committee investigation into EEC aid is completed, I hope that we in Powys will take advantage of the recent European directive and support a programme of three-year projects which will bring prosperity to my area.
That will mean that we can negotiate direct with Brussels and by-pass the Welsh Office. If we are successful, I hope that our Secretary of State will not unfairly penalise us by the principle of additionality. If we take the trouble and time to obtain money from Europe, let it be treated as a bonus for the people of Powys and not as an indirect subsidy to the United Kingdom Government. I feel strongly that additionality should be outlawed by legislation so that the grants from Europe become what they are intended to be—a bonus for the more disadvantaged areas of our Principality.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I owe an apology to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to right hon. and hon. Members, because I failed to hear the opening speeches, due to a prior arrangement. However, I will ensure that I read those speeches in Hansard tomorrow.
With the continuing unemployment problem in Wales hanging over our heads, which shows a trend towards long-term unemployment, is it not time that politicians on the Right and Left put aside their ideologies and concentrated their minds on the practical problems of how to create work for the unemployed and how to improve the quality of life for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own? We spend a great deal of time in the House apportioning blame to one cause or another, while the dole queues grow and the threat to the social fabric of this country increases daily. The great weakness of our present system of adversary politics is shown when two


political parties fight over every issue without attempting to look for common ground that could provide solutions for pressing problems.
The situation in Wales is now so grave that it will be necessary, sooner or later, for the Government to put aside their aversion to public investment and inject money into capital projects to improve industrial prospects and cut down unemployment. As a Member for a rural constituency, I am particularly aware of the effects of the present recession on the farming communities and those living in smaller towns and villages. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's intention to review the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales, which has done such sterling work in the Mid-Wales area. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recommend that more funds are given to the board so that it can continue its work and that the boundaries can be extended to include, in particular, those areas in North Pembrokeshire and Camarthenshire that come into the catchment area of Cardigan and LampeterLlandysul where the latest unemployment figures are 22.5 and 23.4 per cent. respectively.
It is important that more light industry is encouraged and that communications, both road and rail, are improved. I make a strong plea for the preservation of the rural railway lines throughout North, Mid and West Wales; they provide a link between communities and are undoubtedly a social necessity. The recent report commissioned by the DBRW shows that an investment of £7.5 million could reinvigorate the whole system west of Shrewsbury. Such an investment should not be delayed. This kind of project could provide local employment and give large areas of Wales a link with national transport networks and the possibility of a share in any future prosperity. It would be tragic if the outcome of the dispute between British Rail and ASLEF were to result in further closures, as has been hinted in some quarters. I trust that the Secretary of State, in his wisdon, will resist any such moves by British Rail.
I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of the importance of the agriculture industry to the Welsh economy. According to official figures, farming, fishing and forestry contribute about 41/2 per cent. to the gross domestic product of Wales. This is twice the percentage for the United Kingdom as a whole. The mainstay of agricultural production in Wales is the livestock sector. This, unfortunately, is the sector, apart from sheep, that has seen the greatest fall in production over the past few years.
It is true that farm incomes have shown a slight improvement, according to this year's price review White Paper, but this represents only 1.9 per cent. in real terms. Production continues to fall. The reason, I am convinced, is that the industry has lost a great deal of confidence and is afraid to invest more money or to expand. It is also fair to point out, as the president of the National Fanners Union of Wales has done this week, that the White Paper figures are not particularly good when one realises that current incomes are still 51/2 per cent. below 1976 levels. Farmers have had to borrow heavily to cope with rising costs. Despite heroic efforts to improve their land and productivity over the years, they have had little reward in terms of return on capital.
Hill farming constitutes a large part of Welsh agriculture. The viability of this kind of farming depends on grants from the Government and from the EEC. At the same time, it is necessary to recognise the importance of

this sector to the industry as a whole. It forms an essential link in the livestock production chain. On its survival depends the survival of the rural community in many parts of Wales. In rural Wales, 20 per cent. of employment comes from agriculture. It is an important factor in stemming depopulation and keeping whole areas alive. Farmers also preserve the countryside by their cultivation and care of the environment.
The current edition of the Farmers Guardian examines the dangers facing hill farming and states:
The balance of these and other arguemnts must be that i/ is in the national interest for us to maintain at least as much hill land as at present in food production. The contribution from the public purse is an investment. The contribution to the national larder from the energy and skill of the men and women who farm soave of our most difficult land is beyond price".
I fully endorse those wise remarks. The Secretary of State should bear them in mind when pressing the case for Welsh farming.
I should like an assurance from the Secretary of State, or the Minister, that the British Government are putting the case forcefully on behalf of the marginal land farmers to the European Commission in Brussels for the extension of the existing less-favoured areas. I had the privilege a week or so ago of going to Brussels, and I was told by one of the leading officials in the Commission that the British Government were entirely to blame for the fact that the marginal land problem has not been solved. It is up to the Minister to deny that, but that is what I was told.
I understand that about 700,000 acres of disadvantaged agricultural land have been identified as a result of the recent survey carried out by the Welsh Office agricultural department. It is vital that the Government should now press our claims in Europe. As has been pointed out, Z5 per cent. of financial aid will come from the EEC, while the remaining 75 per cent. could largely be offset by food production on land designated for such support. This financial help would be another step in the right direction in preserving Welsh rural life.
I make a plea to all hon. Members, in Government, in Opposition and in all the minority parties, and also to the Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I have had the privilege of sitting on this Committee for over two years. It is doing good work. A strong case could be made for all parties to be represented on the Welsh Select Committee, the Tories, the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SDP and Plaid Cymru. We must bear in mind that the discussions of the Committee range over the whole spectrum of Welsh life. It would seem only fair to the electorate of Wales that there should be proportional representation of all political opinions in Wales at this difficult time, so that the recommendations of the Committee could reflect more fairly the concern of those whom Welsh Members represent.
Plaid Cymru Members of Parliament, in their protestations, often forget to mention that they have representation on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts and that as members of a minority party they have done well under the present system, but that is not an argument that I wish to pursue. I just want to put the case that as the Welsh Select Committee was presented by the Government as an alternative to a Welsh Assembly, all political parties should be represented on it if we believe in democracy.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is prepared to give up his seat on the Welsh Select Committee in favour of an SDP representative, which now has a majority representation in Wales?

Mr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I hope that he believes in democracy, and I am sure that he holds a similar view to mine, which is that Members of all shades should be represented on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. To answer his question, there is no need for me to give up my seat. It is up to the Opposition and the two major parties to make sure that they accede to the appeal that I have just made.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am perturbed that hon. Members can walk into the Chamber at this late stage and be called to speak when some of us who have been here since Prayers at 2.30 pm are still waiting to be called. I prayed this afternoon at 2.30, but clearly my prayers have not been answered until twenty minutes to nine. Other hon. Members who did not bother to come for Prayers have been called before me. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), if I had not been here for the two opening speeches of the debate, I should have declined the opportunity to speak until those who had been here from the start of the debate had spoken.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber for the time being, because I wanted to tell him that of anyone I know he can compress the greatest number of words into the smallest ideas. Today he took 54 minutes to do just that. I listened attentively to him in the hope that I could have informed the thousands of YOP demonstrators who were outside the Commons today, and the hundreds whom we addressed in Westminster Hall, that there was a future for them and that the Secretary of State for Wales would provide a future for the young Welsh unemployed. We listened to 54 minutes of a boring speech from the right hon. Gentleman. His speech had no substance. He had nothing to offer to the young people of Wales. In particular, he had very little to offer to others——

Mr. Michael Roberts: rose——

Mr. Powell: The Minister will have ample opportunity to speak later.

Mr. Roberts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I shall take only a moment. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I should say that he left some of the points about opportunities for young people for me to deal with at the end of the debate, and I hope that my comments will help.

Mr. Powell: I thank the Under-Secretary. I am glad that we shall get something out of a full Welsh affairs debate to tell the young people to whom we spoke this afternoon, because their problems are the ones for which the Government have to find remedies. The Under-Secretary should look at the suggestion by the Secretary of State for Employment about the payment that young people will receive—not the £23.50 or £25.00 that they receive now, but the £15 to which it has been reduced. The young people are critical, not only about the fact that they do not have a job, but that they do not have sufficient money to live on.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) has left the Chamber. I am sorry because I wanted to ask

him about Mr. John Jones, the chairman elect of the Welsh water authority. Is he the same John Jones that I, as a Member sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, know as a divisional officer in Wales and the West, because that man would have been an ideal appointment to the chairmanship of the Welsh water authority? Whoever this Mr. John Jones is, I hope that he is not another Tarzan or another Tebbit so that the industrial relations that we have built up with the Welsh water authority will not be ruined overnight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) went into some detail about his trip around parts of Wales on a bike. His trip illustrated in graphic detail the ridiculousness of the statements and suggestions that have been offered to the unemployed in Wales. We know the figures. We have heard them all. They were set out in a debate about unemployment and employment opportunities in Wales that I initiated on 14 December. The total of Welsh jobless is 174,878,—16.1 per cent. of the population. There are 8,041 school leavers seeking work.
When the Secretary of State began his remarks, he referred to the jobless and to what the Government are now doing to reduce unemployment. I should like to quote from a reply to a parliamentary question on 15 February about unemployment in Wales from 1960 to 1981. The Secretary of State gave a table in that reply showing that on 14 June there were 54,107 males and 25,925 females out of work. On 11 June 1981, there were 107,080 males out of work and 43,272 females out of work. A similar answer on the same day showed that there were 613,000 males and 409,000 females employed in Wales in 1979. For 1981—he could not give the up-to-date figure—there were 541,000 males and 373,000 females employed.
The unemployment rate has doubled for males and has practically doubled for females in the two years of the present Government and, in addition, employment in Wales for both males and females has been reduced by about 100,000 males and 23,000 females. Whatever the Secretary of State's excuses, he cannot get away from the figures he furnished me with last week.
The figures for unemployment announced this week by the Department of Employment for the whole of Wales are available for hon. Members and for the public to see. No one is trying to gloss over that, but the Secretary of State is trying to confuse the issue entirely.
In Mid-Glamorgan there are 33,686 people looking for work. That is 17.31 per cent. of the workforce. In my constituency in 1981, following the catastrophic preceding year, 18 factories were closed. Ten are still empty. The rateable income on those factories has been reduced by £25,000, plus the loss of rateable revenue from Caeru and Coegnant collieries, which have been closed. The unemployment problem in Ogmore is becoming so great that the Chancellor must seriously consider the level of jobless when drafting his Budget of 9 March.
On Tuesday evening the Prime Minister, at an engineering employers dinner in London, warned that the Budget will be more severe than industry had hoped. She said that unemployment recovery would lag behind the recovery of output. The fall in oil prices two weeks ago is her excuse for another no-hope Budget. Then she talked about resisting the demand for easy options and said that it is the set of the sail and not the gale that determines the way she goes. After the past two years of weathering the gale of her policies and the way she has set the sail, I know


where the electors will determine that she goes—unless her friendly wets get to her first—because there is one sailor boy who would love to drop her anchor.
Conservative Members must realise that Europe is not the answer to the problem. It is partially the cause. West Germany's Chancellor Schmidt warns of society being in danger with well over 10 million out of work and pleads with all, including the Prime Minister, to face up to the unemployment crisis with great realism before it explodes.
What do we hear from the right hon. Lady? On "TV Eye" she said that there was no need to go on and on about unemployment unless we had something helpful to suggest. I do not understand why she does not listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, the TUC, the CBI or Labour Party researchers. Perhaps her advisers are not telling her the truth or are not cataloguing the ideas, proposals and alternative economic strategies that have been suggested by all those sources, as well as by Labour Members, right hon. and hon. Conservative Members and even by those around the Cabinet table. Her Government's policies are not valid or workable. They are not creditable and they are definitely not curing the disastrous, detestable and destructive unemployment that is crippling Wales and the whole country.
I wish to speak about the death on the dole of 50,000 people, many of whom have been Welsh. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales with responsibility for health is in his place. At Question Time on 15 February he stated:
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is any straightforward connection between the nation's state of health and the unemployment figures, although I know that reports have been produced on the subject."—[Official Report, 15 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 13.]
Perhaps I could draw his intention to the direct consequences of the Government's policies on Glarrhyd hospital in my constituency at Bridgend, which has already been referred to in a reply to an intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. It has had to close a psychogeriatric unit to make room for young psychiatric patients. The number of outpatients has increased by 50 per cent. Most of the new patients have come from the Neath and Port Talbot travel-to-work black spots, where 20,000 people are unemployed. That area includes Maesteg, Ogmore, Garw and Bridgend. The hospital administrator, Drew Kimber, expects that number of patients for the psychiatric ward to increase as people leave the dole queue for that ward. He has said that it has been established that after a time lag of 18 months after becoming unemployed some people become psychiatric.
Kimber warns that some patients who have been left in the community should be in hospital. They cannot cope. The hospital is old and should be reducing the number of beds. The knock-on effect on the family that suffers financial and other stress, needs to be considered, too. The spin-off effects have been constantly drawn to the Government's attention since July 1980. There are increased deaths, ill health and crime, but the Government, like the Under-Secretary, play down the issue.
In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) the Prime Minister said that it was well researched that those with poor health and social problems tended to he more often or more readily unemployed. The

unemployed, she said, may have more time to bring their health or social problems to the attention of health or social services.
A spokesman at Guy's hospital, London, at the unit for the study of health policy stated:
The experience of the South Wales Hospital is repeated throughout the country and reinforces the view that links between unemployment and illness are very real.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will do some research and will realise the difficulties and problems of young people and the unemployed.
The YOP trainees in their demonstration today tightly stated that Cabinet Ministers who earn £534.70 per week cannot understand the difficulties and problems of young people who receive £25 per week. If some Ministers had to live on £25 per week, they might appreciate the problems and difficulties of young people.
Today I received a letter from one of my constituents. It is one of many that I receive. I expect that many hon. Members on both sides of the House receive such letters daily. The letter is a plea from a widow who writes:
My husband worked for over 40 years, and regret to say he died in February 1976.
I receive E29–60 widow's pension a week, plus £6.62 NUM pension, which make a total of 06.22 per week. I had a letter from the tax people stating that after 6.4.82 they will be taxing me on my NUM pension. Surely this is not right. I can honestly tell you I have great difficulty in making ends meet.
I can well understand that. She goes on to say:
I don't get any allowance for my gas until I reach the age of 60 years, then this will be debated between the NUM and the coal board.
I have tried on numerous occasions to find work, but my age is against me. Also I am under doctor's orders not to do any heavy work as I am suffering with a bad heart.
Such letters are depressing. Such people are distressed. We can see part of the reason why the psychiatric units in Glarrhyd and other areas are full.
It is time that I finished my speech. I accept that I have been speaking for a little while longer than some hon. Members would have expected, but I probably will have delivered a better speech than that of the Secretary of State for Wales, who took 53 minutes to tell us nothing. Having dealt mostly with the unemployed and their problems, I shall keep the rest of my speech for a future occasion when I hope that my prayers will be answered a little earlier so that I have more time.
We need a plan to end poverty among the jobless. The unemployed should qualify for the higher long-term rate of supplementary benefit after the first year of benefit. The cuts in adult and child rates for unemployment benefit should be restored and the value of benefits protected against inflation. Money saved through the abolition of earnings-related supplement and the taxation of benefits should be returned to the unemployed. Local travel facilities should be provided at concessionary rates for the unemployed. The allowance for young people on YOP schemes should be restored to its November 7.979 value—£30 at November 1981—and the right to supplementary benefit should be restored to school leavers.
Finally, I congratulate Wales on declaring this week that it is now a nuclear-free zone.

9 pm

Mr. Roy Hughes: Perhaps the greatest scandal in Wales today is the level of water charges. Every day the West Midlands area draws 75 million gallons from


the Elan valley, for which it pays £1 million per annum. Yet people living in the shadow of the reservoirs are charged more for their water than are consumers in the West Midlands. The same principle applies throughout Wales. Next year the average domestic water rate in Wales will rise to £79 compared with £65 in Birmingham.
Some years ago, to try to relieve the burden on consumers, the Labour Government introduced an equalisation scheme whereby richer authorities paid a levy into a central fund, from which the Welsh water authority benefited by £3 million annually, and it was intended to extend the scheme to bring lasting benefit to those suffering the most.
Instead, the Conservatives scrapped the system in one of their many acts of barbarism and complete disregard for the interests of the people of Wales. I have long recognised that in the present Government the blind are leading the blind, but the injustice of these charges to the people of Wales is so glaring that I should have thought that even a blind man could see it. The situation is the more ridiculous when one remembers that all three Ministers involved—the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—claim Welsh descent.
On a more parochial basis, the way in which ratepayers in Birmingham are treated is in marked contrast to the way in which those in Newport are treated. Both towns are major industrial centres, and, early on, each saw the need to make provision for future water supplies, but through various centralisation schemes the water rate in Newport has risen by an incredible 2,700 per cent. since 1960—and there is no water rate rebate for the needy. The amount increased from £1.93 in 1959–60 to £53 in 1982–83.
A similarly exorbitant pattern of increases has developed for sewerage charges. The water and sewerage charges for the average domestic ratepayer in Newport will be £96, compared with a borough rate of only £46. That figure is finalised by the 18 per cent. increase recently announced by the Welsh water authority.
Despite all the financial burdens imposed on consumers in Newport and the fact that Newport is the third largest town in Wales, it has no representation on the Welsh water authority. Why has the Welsh water authority been allowed to get away with such things? If rates were to increase in that way the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for the Environment would soon put the commissioners in to take over the local authority concerned.
Those figures mean that water and sewerage charges in Newport are more than double the cost of all the other services provided by the borough authority—including housing, public health, swimming pools and parks, public works, a municipal bus service and a subsidy for the Welsh National Bus Company.
In addition, the economic and social development of the town must be considered, because this will provide new jobs, not only for the citizens of Newport, but for many thousands of people in the surrounding areas of South-East Wales.
Newport has done its best to persuade the Welsh water authority to provide drainage and water supplies for the new industrial areas. That work is particularly necessary if a number of low-level sites on the coastal belt are to be developed. They are the major industrial sites of the

future. However, the Welsh water authority insists on leaving it to the Welsh Development Agency or to the local authority.
Newport is getting a very bad deal. In return for paying for its own water system a long time ago, it now has to subsidise other areas of Wales so that they have the same level of service. Greater help for and understanding of Newport's problem are needed, both by the Welsh Office and by the Welsh water authority. Secondly, local authorities in the West Midlands must be made to pay more for precious Welsh water than they have been doing. Thirdly, the overall efficiency of the Welsh water authority must be looked into. I protested about the authority's proposal to send out its own bills, but that protest was of no avail. That work had been done perfectly satisfactorily for many years by district local authorities.
New super divisions have been created and new offices to go with those new divisions—not forgetting the palace of bureaucracy in Brecon. Now there is to be further reorganisation and we seem to be moving from the ridiculous to the sublime. If the past is anything to go by, the more centralisation and lack of accountability that there is, the more prices to the consumer rise. Now, apparently, the process is to be completed by major decisions being taken in private, if the headlines in this morning's Western Mail are anything to go by. That is a disgrace, given that it comes from a Government and Prime Minister who talk about open government.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I hope to deal briefly with three of the principal concerns of the people of Wales—jobs, housing and the environment in which they live. I wish to show the interlinkage between those three elements and the extent to which the Government do not appear to appreciate that link.
The job situation in Wales is desperate. At the last Welsh Question Time we were told the extent to which male unemployment in the Principality had increased since May 1979, when the Conservative Party came to office. In May 1979 the figure for male unemployment in my travel-to-work area was 8.3 per cent. That figure is now higher than 20 per cent. That increase of 150 per cent. illustrates the erosion of our manufacturing base. For the first time, skilled men face just as many difficulties as the unskilled.
Those figures are tragic, both in human and social terms. The situation peculiarly affects the long-term unemployed and the young, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) spoke. We know the long-term social effects on the young when they do not know the discipline of getting up in the morning and going to work. Although Wales has been exempt from the youth disorders that have affected other parts of the country, young and old in the Principality will eventually feel that the system is failing them if it cannot provide them with the decent jobs that they have come to expect.
To the tragic waste of human resources must be added the fact that Government sources apparently accept that for every unemployed person the Government lose about £5,000 per annum in tax receipts and payments. In addition, there are more pressures on the unemployed. It can no longer be said—as Conservatives traditionally say—that the unemployed are at fault. People do not have any choice, and they are being penalised and punished in various ways. It is no longer possible—as it was


claimed—to be better off on the dole than at work. The gap between unemployment benefit and wages is the highest for more than 30 years. That is the extent of the social pressures on the unemployed.
Where will growth in the economy come from? It will not come from the private sector, because that is still largely shedding labour. As a result of the absurd decision to abolish exchange controls in 1979, it has been estimated that there has been a £5 billion loss in portfolio investments alone. That money might well have been used to stimulate jobs in the United Kingdom. Job stimulation will come not from exports, but from public investment.
The quality of housing in Wales is perhaps the lowest in the United Kingdom, and Wales has the highest proportion of pre-1919 houses. Astonishing figures have been outlined, which show the complete collapse of the public housing sector. Public sector starts have fallen from about 3,000 in 1979 to 2,000 in 1980 and to about 1,000 in 1981. In many local authorities discretionary improvement grants have virtually come to an end. Nevertheless, about 40 per cent. of construction workers in Wales are unemployed. Any Government with the necessary wit could put together the parts of the equation and provide jobs in the construction industry to improve the quality of our housing stock and to provide housing for those households that demand it.
I have made a pledge about time, so I must bring my remarks to an end. It is not the quality of our housing that is so worrying, but the quality of the environment. Could we not do what was done not only by Roosevelt in the 1930s, but in Amsterdam, where a forest was planted as a public works programme? Usually, the greatest dereliction as a result of industrial development is in places with the highest unemployment levels. We should get the young people, the skilled and the unskilled working together to improve the environment. Work on the environment and on housing is labour-intensive and would not add to our import bill. It would make a major contribution to relieving the greatest disaster facing Wales—the lack of decent jobs.

Mr. Donald Coleman: The debate has enabled us to range widely over a series of matters that are the concern of Welsh people. This in itself should leave no one in doubt about the significance in the affairs of Wales of the Welsh Office or of the importance of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales which, if exercised efficiently, can bring great benefit to Wales, but which, if they are not, can spell disaster for Wales and her people.
We heard a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). I pay tribute to him for the thoughtfulness of his speech. We shall read it carefully and examine the points that he brought out in it. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) was not present during most of the debate, because had he been he would have heard that speech. Had he done so, perhaps he would not have been quite so churlish as he was with the hon. Gentleman.
Unemployment is of the greatest concern to the Welsh people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) was right to pitch this as the main concern of this side of the House. Conservative Members can have no

complaints about this on the part of the Opposition, because they used the following words in their manifesto at the last election:
The disastrous effect of Labour's economic policies on Wales is most starkly revealed by the record level of unemployment reached under Labour. When the Conservatives left office in February 1974, 38,000 people were unemployed in Wales; by last August the figure had climbed to 101,000, the highest total since the early months of the last war, and it seems that similar figures will be experienced again this year. Even more devastating has been the increase in unemployment among school leavers, 16,500 of whom were without jobs last summer. There can be no more depressing start for these young people than to go straight from the classroom to the dole queue. La5our blamed the world recession but the level of unemployment in Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole is far worse than in most of our major international competitors and the scale of increase has been even more severe.
So said the Conservative Party manifesto for Wales.
My right hon. Friend pointed to what the Conservatives regarded as a disaster in 1979, but on which they display a degree of reticence in 1982, as is instanced by their coyness in questioning the Secretary of State about the level of unemployment in their constituencies, which, thanks to my right hon. Friend, has been put on the record. The constituents of the shrinking violets on the Government Benches will., therefore, know the extent of the fate that has befallen them because they fell fox the honeyed words spooned out to them to obtain their votes in 1979.
The Secretary of State clutched at the straw of the dip in the unemployment figures which was announced this week. We are glad to see that reduction. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the number of inquiries received by the Welsh Development Agency. He did not tell the House that there would never have been a Welsh Development Agency to receive those inquiries had he and those of his hon. Friends who were here at the time had their way. They consistently voted against the establishment of the WDA.
There is not much straw for the right hon. Gentlemen to clutch to build bricks with which to protect the people of Wales, whether they are employed or unemployed. Unemployment in Wales is now higher than in any other part of Great Britain. There are more people out of work in Great Britain now than at any time since records began in 1886.
In Wales there are 8,041 school leavers on the unemployment register. In February 1981 there were 5,750, which was a higher level than in 1980. It is little wonder that young people lobby Parliament, as they did today. Over 68,000 are unemployed in Wales. They see the dreadful feature of this month's unemployment figures. The Opposition are horrified by them and%) the deepening phenomenon of long-term unemployment. In Wales, 49 per cent. of the unemployed have been unemployed for less than six months, 211/2 per cent for between six and 12 months, and 291/2 per cent. for more than 12 months. More than half of the unemployed in Wales have been without jobs for six months or more. That is the stark situation.
I fling the words used in the 1979 general election campaign back into the faces of right hon. and hon. Members whose policies have brought us, yet again, to this situation. It can be likened to the 1930s, in which many of us spent our childhood. We protest at the economic disadvantages suffered by the long-term unemployed. It is a disgrace that the Government are 


seeking to reduce the income of the long-term unemployed. However, the unemployed are affected in other ways. Their health, especially their mental health, can be affected.
Reference has been made to Glarrhyd hospital in Bridgend where it has been necessary to close much-needed facilities—the psychogeriatric ward—to make room for young psychiatric patients.
In my capacity as a magistrate I come across another aspect of unemployment. Time and time again I find that unemployment is involved in the commission of crime. We look to the Government to bring about a more realistic understanding of the effect of unemployment than is now evident.
In Wales the steel industry has taken the brunt of redundancies in the current bout of unemployment. It is to be hoped that the massive reduction in the labour force at Port Talbot and Llanwern over recent years has come to an end and that the security of the works is to be ensured. Production costs at the two works are now among the best in Europe. We look to the Government, especially to the Secretary of State, to invest in the South Wales plants so that the employment sacrifices that have been made will not have been in vain and that steel making, which is a traditional Welsh skill, will continue and prosper.
It appears that as a result of pressure, political or otherwise, by senior executives at Ductile, a Department of Industry inquiry has been instituted into the 17 works producing narrow strip with a view to rationalising the market. It appears also from information that has been obtained by Mr. John Foley, the divisional officer of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation in Wales, that Ductile is mounting pressure for the removal of Whitehead, which is the largest and most modern BSC plant. Apparently the corporation has objected and will not accept the closure as a means of boosting the private sector. The Opposition would oppose such a move, and we look to the Under-Secretary of State to say in his reply that the Welsh Office will add its weight to preventing such interference with the future of the Whitehead plant.
We are concerned about the special problems of North Wales. A few years ago Deeside and Wrexham were relatively prosperous areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) often reminds us of the appalling problems that face the area. I am glad that the chairman of the BSC thinks that there is a future for Shotton. I hope that we shall be told precisely what that means for production and secure employment.
The House will wish to know also what plans the Secretary of State has for the Wrexham area. Much needs to be done to restore the shattered confidence of Wrexham and its once thriving industrial estate.
On many occasions we have been reminded of the grim situation in Gwynedd. In Anglesey unemployment stands at over 22 per cent. That is intolerable. What does the Secretary of State have in mind for the people of the island? There is acute concern about current developments in the port of Holyhead. Over the years we became accustomed to hearing speeches from the previous Member for Anglesey, now Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, about the merits and problems of Holyhead. We recall his advocacy when the Britannia bridge caught fire. The position has deteriorated since those days and now over 25 per cent. of the male population are out of work.
If the B and I Line operates from Holyhead will British Railways Sealink continue to operate and compete vigorously? Holyhead is a Sealink port, with two new Sealink ships, the motor vessels "St Columba" and "St David". They are purpose-built for the run to Dun Laoghaire. Will those ships continue to run? We need an assurance from the Secretary of State that the arrival of B and I in Holyhead will not interfere with Sealink operations.
I noted what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) said when he expressed his concern for the future status of Mid-Wales under regional policy. From my experience, which stems from the reign of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science at the Department of Industry, I am well aware of the anxieties that are being felt in Mid-Wales over its position under regional policy. Ministers at the Welsh Office must recognise those anxieties and take action to remove them so that the people in those areas can move securely into the future.
The Secretary of State referred briefly to agriculture. We recognise the importance of agriculture in Wales and we draw attention to the difficulties in the way of young people who wish to set up in farming, because of the high level of interest charges. We are glad about the fall in interest rates this week, but the fact that they have been so high for so long, causing such problems for young people, is a direct result of the mad monetarism of the Conservative Party. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House the latest position about marginal land.
The anger expressed in Wales about the 18.3 per cent. increase in domestic water charges by the Welsh water authority must prompt comment. I hope that we shall have a comment from the Minister. Since its reorganisation in 1974 the water industry in Wales has been changing continuously. Each time such a change has taken place deficiencies in its operations have been revealed. Wales has a difficult balance between revenue and cost to overcome. The population is relatively low. The rateable value, which is the main factor in water charging, is also low. The cost structure has to overcome a difficult geography. The Welsh water authority has to be reconciled to a situation of either higher charges or reduced services, or a political solution has to be found.
Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, the abolition of equalisation has been a significant factor in price increases. A possible political solution would be to restore a central fund which could equalise charges. An alternative political solution, which would have to be applied to all authorities, would be to write off historic debt. If that were done, it would be of considerable benefit to us in Wales. One day a Government will have to grasp the nettle and create a full nationalised water industry.
I conclude, as I began, by referring to unemployment. Despite the approach of the Conservatives at the last election, their offence against the people of Wales is that since they have been in Government more Welsh people than ever before have found themselves unemployed. Unemployment in Britain today costs the Exchequer over £12 billion a year. The Opposition's proposal for a Budget expansion of £8.3 billion for the year ahead would begin the process of restructuring the British economy. It would create an extra 677,000 jobs. It would cause registered unemployment to fall by 574,000. We say to the Government and to the people of Wales that unemployment in Britain will remain at over 3 million unless present


policies are changed. We demand, in the name of our people, that the policies are changed. We promise that when the time comes we will change them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales(Mr.Michael Roberts): Today's debate has been as wide ranging as ever on these occasions. Several hon. Members have referred to the importance of our education service in Wales and to the problems of youth in particular. I should like to start by dealing with the crucial beginning for the future prosperity of Wales—the education and training of our young people. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) have spoken on this issue. Both have taken a considerable interest in our schools and in education over a long period, as indeed has the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) who raised the matter in his opening speech. They have expressed certain reservations about the level of achievement in our schools, and I share their concern.
There is plenty of evidence of widespread underachievement in secondary schools among pupils of all levels of ability and in all subject areas. It is perhaps the most worrying issue in schools today. We can never eradicate it entirely, but we need to do all we can to reduce it. Schools can significantly influence pupil attitudes, motivation and achievements, but to do so they need to be clear about their aims and objectives, and methods of achieving them. This means looking at curricular and organisational arrangements, teaching methods and materials, and the ethos and attitudes of the school as a community.
The inspectorate in Wales has produced a paper which looks at some of the factors which contribute to underachievement and the ways in which they can be modified or eliminated. I propose to publish this as soon as it can be printed. It will be published some time next month. Thereafter, I will be discussing the issues with interested bodies and individuals.
The hon. Member for Merioneth asked that we should do something along the lines of the Mold conference of the previous Labour Administration. I do not envisage doing something exactly along those lines but, when this document is published next month, I intend to discuss it with those bodies that I think will be particularly interested. I will also be happy to discuss it with other bodies, such as the teacher unions, the WJEC, directors of education and headmasters and I will welcome those who can contribute to a debate on education and put forward their valued points of view. I hope that this document will make a significant contribution to consideration of the problem and be of great assistance to individual schools and authorities.
Opposition Members are fond of painting a gloomy picture of an education service falling apart through lack of resources. I do not object to anyone mentioning resources because that is obviously the duty of all concerned with education. However, the education service is in no way falling apart because of a lack of resources and to suggest that it is completely unhelpful to those trying to tackle the problems of educating our children. It is worth remembering that the resources devoted to education are still enormous—over half local authority current expenditure. In addition, the pupil-teacher ratio in Wales has never been better, and the recently announced

rate support grant formula provides much more central Government support for Welsh than for English local authorities. There certainly have to be economies as pupil numbers fall, but the overall problem is one of making best use of the available resources rather than allocating still more without questioning whether they will be used efficiently.
As politicians, we will do our children the gravest disservice if we concentrate unduly on the arguments about resources and pretend that there was once a golden age and that, with more resources, money, buildings and books, more and bigger free school meals and even more teachers, all will be well. Truancy did not start because of economics, nor in my judgment is a lack of resources a significant factor in its growth. It is perhaps significant that the two assessment of performance unit surveys of secondary mathematics, in which the inadequacies of the Welsh performance were so clearly revealed, were carried out in 1978 and 1979. The fact that the children reported on had been educated at a time of peak spending did nothing to improve their relative performance.
I was told recently of a Cardiff boy who had done very little in school. On a school holiday in Switzerland he said to his headmaster "In school, I am no good at anything, but I put on these skis and a went across the mountains." He went all the way to Switzerland to find something he could do. That is nothing to do with resources, but it does raise the problem of the curriculum. Teaching children something that they can achieve is of value and satisfies the individual child. I am confident that we can, within the available resources, do better for our children. Through the teachers, head teachers, inspectors and parents, we can work and make some progress. To that end we should devote our energy and thought and not to a constant bickering about resources which are not infinite whatever Government are in office.
Where it can be demonstrated that there is a genuine need for additional resources, this Government have made them available, an example being the additional money made available to local authorities because of the increase in the number of applications from young people who wish to stay on in schools or colleges. The Welsh share of this additional money is £3 million in 1982–83 and larger sums have been included in our plans for later years. Their adequacy will be kept under review and it is envisaged that £4.5 million will be provided in 1983–84.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the new training initiative, which has a vital part to play in equipping Welsh workers for the industries of the future. It is nonsense that in 1982 we continue to accept age restrictions that can force bright young people to choose between A-levels and apprenticeships--I know that there are not many apprenticeships but do we have to make that choice—and which prevent older people from being considered for entry into the skilled occupations at all. It is equally ridiculous to rely on time-serving rather than on the attainment of agreed standards as a measure of efficiency.
Not only the standards of skilled training but also the skills trained for need bringing up to date. We need training for the future rather than for the skills of the past—skills on which we can build and develop so that we can take advantage of the developing technologies and opportunities as they arise. We may be unable to foresee precisely which specific skills will be needed in the future, so our training arrangements need to be flexible, with


considerable readaptation of the existing labour force. Wider opportunities for training and retraining of people in their twenties and thirties and later in life are needed. The resources of the training opportunities programme, currently some £250 million a year, are to be increasingly directed towards encouraging the necessary provisions and the new Open Tech proposals will play their part in this facet of our training future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) asked me for some information about the Hollywell bypass. This request was echoed by Labour Members. Provided that all goes will with the outstanding statutory procedures I hope that we shall be able to start work on this important scheme late in 1984 or early 1985. The scheme will cost about £17 million.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) and for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) all made inquiries about the assisted area review in Mid-Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales recently and is well briefed on the views and experience of the board. He and the Welsh Office will be fully involved in the review which will cover other areas as well. I assure hon. Members—I know that many are interested in this question—that all the representations made by local authorities and others will be fully taken into account, including the concern about possible loss of access to European Commission funds and tourism support.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor and for Flint, West both raised the important question of continued membership of the EEC. In characteristically constructive speeches they pointed out the advantages to Wales of our continued membership. In last year's Welsh debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales emphasised how vitally important the continuation of EEC membership was to the industrial regeneration of the Principality.
Time has reinforced this view. Recent studies by the European League for Economic Co-operation have, for example, highlighted the importance of access to the European market of new and incoming investment, and past success in attracting such developments to the Principality, particularly American and Japanese investment, has amply demonstrated the benefits that can accrue from maintenance of a European perspective. In this context it is interesting to note that well over 50,000 people in Wales are presently employed in manufacturing units owned or controlled by foreign companies.
I can give one personal illustration of this. A few months ago I opened an extension of the 3M factory at Gorseinon in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gower (Dr. Davies). It was made clear that that extension would never have been built had it not been for the fact that we were in the EEC and that was a part of its market. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) tempts me to go into his vacillating record of support for the EEC. At least the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has been consistently wrong. I am delighted to say that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is to study the issue of membership of the EEC. I trust that, in its great wisdom, it will remove the prejudices of some Labour Members.
I shall say a few words about the state of Welsh agriculture. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Neath and those two great champions of agriculture, the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), and of course I should not dream of leaving out that other great champion of agriculture, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). I tried to make a note of all those who spoke about agriculture, and I hope that I have succeeded in mentioning them all.
The annual review of agriculture White Paper published on 17 February indicates a small 1 per cent. real increase in United Kingdom farm incomes, although it is conceded that the levels for 1980–81 are still well below the levels achieved in earlier years. The final figures of the farm management survey now available reveal a more optimistic picture of Welsh agriculture in 1980–81, in particular. Despite the effects of the severe January weather, there are signs of renewed confidence in the industry in 1982. As Government policies to reduce the level of inflation succeed and interest levels tend to fall, the foundations will be laid for a return to greater profitability in the industry, to a reduction in the level of its indebtedness, and a resumption of investment—which is, of course, the key to continuing productivity.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda and others spoke about the implications for health and personal social services of unemployment. The matter was mentioned by many right hon. and hon. Members today. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the joint working party of directors of social services and the Welsh Office. This was designed to review the existing body of research studies on the social consequences of unemployment. It concluded that the implications for the social services could not be assessed with any accuracy. Some very tentative financial conclusions were derived from American statistical studies, but the basis of these has been questioned by subsequent research in Britain.
The stress, frustration, false sense of failure, unjustified feeling of inadequacy and consequent ill health that can sometimes develop is an individual and not a collective occurrence. I recognise the right hon. Member's concern. I share it. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman regrets that we were not as aware of it four years ago when unemployment was over 100,000 in Wales. It is not a new problem. It has, alas, always been with us.
What has compounded the effect of the recession in this country has been the failure of past Governments to get to grips with the basic problems of overmanning and a willingness to turn a blind eye to pay increases not matched by improvements in productivity. Wales has suffered too from the special problems arising from the restructuring of some of our basic industries and the need to vary our industrial base. In Wales too, as elsewhere, we have had to face the widening of the Labour market, including the number of women wishing to take up or return to employment.
The hon. Member for Neath quoted many statistics. I too could use statistics, not to prove a case but just to show that anyone can use them. A greater proportion of people are working in Britain than in almost any country in the world, but that does not alleviate the problem. Sometimes we throw out statistics but we forget about the individual who suffers.
I shall say a word about some of the causes of unemployment. Unemployment and jobs properly


dominated the debate. Concern was correctly expressed, but right hon. and hon. Members opposite, if they were strong on compassion, as, indeed, they were, failed on analysis. The decline in employment levels in all industrialised countries in recent years gives the lie to the argument that unemployment is somehow the consequence of the Government's efforts to tackle our basic economic problem.
Against that background, there are good indications for the future—the rate of decline in employment has slowed, short-time working levels in manufacturing have decreaseds the incidence of overtime worked in manufacturing has increased and monthly redundancies figures have dropped.
It is reasonable and fair to say that the majority of the speeches made by Labour Members were critical but lacking in much constructive thought. There was considerable passion and I respect what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said about young people not even developing the habit of going out to work and how debilitating and frustrating that must be. However, when the hon. Gentleman and others quoted figures for massive reflationary packages, they did not even try to assess the inflationary effect, if any, of the proposals that have been put before the House.
There is nothing in the background, the experience or the character of the hon. Members opposite which for one moment would support in the minds of a fair-minded observer their assumption that only they care for the plight of the unemployed and that Members on this side of the House do not. I must tell the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that I find it deeply insulting that he suggests that it should be so.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Roberts: I shall not give way.

Mr. Jones: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Roberts: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is fairly late in the day.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman should have started earlier instead of waffling on about that rubbish.

Mr. Roberts: I am very sorry that my references to education are regarded as waffle by the right hon. Gentleman. He is in no position to talk about it.

Mr. Jones: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a Welsh debate, but we must have only one hon. Member on his feet at any time.

Mr. Roberts: Education is not unimportant.
As for SDP Members, there have been too many blinding conversions on the road to constituency reselection meetings for them to cut any ice at all. However, what unites them with their former colleagues is a political opportunism that transcends compassion and care for the unemployed. At least today we know where the SDP stands in Wales and we know its programme to solve our unemployment problems. The right hon. Member for Rhondda was told by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), but perhaps he did not listen, that the SDP will ignore economic factors and will turn to the political message. It will have a Parliament for Wales, the very thing that the people of Wales rejected so completely only three years ago. At least we know what its remedy is for solving unemployment.
Meanwhile we are trying to provide an excellent infrastructure. Every local authority brochure, including that for Mid-Glamorgan, tells us that that is so. The traditional industries such as steel are emerging revitalised and competitive. We are attracting new industries based on modern technology——

Mr. Jones: And the highest level of unemployment for 30 years.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I expect that the right hon. Gentleman has been drinking.

Mr. Jones: rose——

Mr. Roberts: Those industries are based on modern technology. Mitel and Inmos and all the companies that are coming——

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION, c.

Ordered,

That the Standing Order of 2nd July 1979 relating to Ihe nomination of the Select Committee on European Legislation, c., be amended, by leaving out Mrs. Peggy Fenner and inserting Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Gas Vessel (Solent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

10 pm

Mr.Robert Adley: After the passions of party conflict in the Welsh debate, I assure the House that the passions about the subject that I am allowed to raise run as deeply. They are felt right across the board, regardless of party loyalty. I refer to the subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in his Private Member's Bill yesterday. I am glad to see that he is here this evening, together with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).
This is the first chance that we have had in the House to have a Minister present to respond to a matter of major concern in the Solent area, from Chichester to Christchurch. It has wide national implications. We look forward to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister.
The proposal that is causing all the concern is the one to moor and trade from a 900 ft. long tanker in the Solent, filled with a highly inflammable liquid. Not only is that vessel 900 ft. long, but it is surrounded by a 500 metre no-go area. The proposal has been made by Knud Jensen. Until the last few days, one of the intending users was Mobil Oil.
If the proposal were to go ahead, in the words of the director of the Southern Tourist Board, it could
lead to the industrialisation of what is one of this country's most important sailing and recreational areas.
That is not an exaggeration, as we are certain that if the proposal goes ahead there will be an unstoppable precedent for further development.
We are told that Mobil Oil is likely to pull out from the scheme. The promoter and others are trying to give the impression that the scheme is dead and the danger is over. That is not my information. Mr. Jensen was interviewed the night before last by Mr. Bruce Parker of Southern Television. Mr. Parker asked:
What difference does it make to the operation now that Mobil does not want to have a part of the operation?
Mr. Jensen replied:
First of all it is not Mobil's scheme, it is my scheme, so I do not see that Mobil has any stake in my scheme.
He finished th interview by saying:
It is still a plan, so the plan will go ahead, yes.
Therefore, I am by no means convinced that the threat is over.
The leader of one of the local authorities in the Solent area said to me on the telephone that it could be disastrous if we lowered our guard.
Mr. M. J. Fisher, the Government affairs manager of Mobil, told me on the 'phone that Mobil had
Withdrawn from discussion of this particular scheme.
He was unable to say that Mobil would not consider other schemes in future. He was unable to give an assurance that it would not use the facilities of the scheme if the facilities were provided elsewhere, but nearby. Mr. Fisher said in a letter that his company's position was as follows:
Mobil would want to be certain that any environmental and social impacts of the scheme, eg public safety, recreational and sporting aspects, would be fully acceptable.
Mobil Oil first entered into negotiations last November. The letter from which I quoted was dated 19 February 1982. Therefore, it appears that for three months Mobil Oil

had not been convinced that the proposal was sufficiently damaging to the area or had environmental and social impacts that would be unacceptable to the Solent area.
Does anyone seriously believe that even oil companies can be that insensitive? Mr. Fisher says that I am being aggresive about this issue. If that is so, I wear the accusation as a badge of pride from the oil companies, as they are not exactly timid in protecting and promoting their own interests.
One might have thought it reasonable to assume that there had been full public discussion of this issue and that agreement had been reached with all the relevant local authorities, but that is not so. There has been a deliberate attempt for nearly a year to conceal the implications of the proposal from the public. There has certainly been a lack of adequate control.
If one accepts the undesirability of the proposal—I think that everyone in the Solent area does, with the exception of Mr. Jensen and his commercial allies—one must examine the wider aspects of the way in which this issue has come to the attention of the public and the way in which it can—or sadly, perhaps cannot—be handled with the law in its present state.
Not only is the law muddled, but the lack of clarity is used by oil companies to get their own way in a whole range of issues. Numerous Government Departments are involved. I have spent a few years in the house and every year, it seems, we have a battle. It is oil in the Forest, or the dredging up of fishermen's nets as companies explore for oil or spillage and pollution and even the mooring of redundant oil rigs.
I recall that during the passage of the Merchant Shipping Bill, Back Benchers on the Committee, of which I was a member, voted to a man for a proposal that would make oil companies, as owners of the oil, responsible for the results of any spillage at sea. It is unacceptable to many hon. Members that oil companies are allowed to override the law in many cases. So bad is the existing position of the law relating to offshore operations that I venture to suggest that if someone wanted to moor the QE 2 off the mouth of Lymington river and run it as a floating brothel there would not be sufficient powers to prevent that.
In answer to a question about the co-ordination of Government Departments my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an extremely helpful and encouraging reply. As part of that answer she said that she had asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the closer co-ordination of departmental interests in this problem. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be able to say something about that.
The Department of Energy is also involved. Perhaps the Minister will examine the oil drilling licence legislation in statutory instrument 1129 of 1976, for example, which gives the Department of Energy control over certain oil activities in the offshore area. There are inadequate powers for local authorities working in concert with the Department of the Environment to control these matters. I shall quote from letters from Three local authorities.
First, Mr. John Marshall, leader of Portsmouth city council, wrote:
I need hardly say that the Portsmouth City Council is totally opposed to this project. We would wish to associate ourselves with any Group or Local Authority opposing the introduction of this floating bomb into so outstanding an environmental and sporting area.


Secondly, the chief executive of the New Forest district council wrote to the British Transport Docks Board saying:
The call for a Public Inquiry into the proposal should be most carefully considered to maintain public respect for decisions taken by the Board of a nationalised undertaking which is not accountable direct to the electorate.
There is more, which I shall not read.
Thirdly, the chief executive of the borough of Christchurch wrote to me saying:
the Council expect the Association of District Councils to ensure that any individual developments such as this one, if it eventuates, to not in any way become precendents.
The sad fact is that local authorities do not have the power. Moreover, it is certain that this would become a precedent if it went ahead. The Department of Trade has certain responsibilities under the Coast Protection Act, but those powers generally relate to shipping matters, so the Department has no power to deal with this problem.
The Department of Transport is the sponsoring Department for the British Transport Docks Board, but the board's record of industrial relations in the port of Southampton does not give one much confidence in its negotiating abilities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will put the following questions to the British Transport Docks Board: should it not have a duty to consult adjacent local authorities? Should it not take note of public opinion? I also question the board's opinion on the safety of the proposal. If the operation is as safe as it makes out, why is it necessary to have a no-go area around the ship into which even Mirror dinghies cannot sail?
With regard to LPG, the New Scientist  reported on 5 November 1981:
What would happen if a cloud of liquefied gas escaped? On 11 July 1978, a road tanker carrying propylene gas from a nearby refinery passed a camp site at Los Lafraques, 150 kilometres south of Barcelona. The tanker sprang a leak, a white cloud spread over the camp site and caught fire. The heat was so fierce that watches and rings melted on the 200 charred bodies it left behind.
That accident scared oilmen and fire experts. If a leak in a gas tanker can have such devastating effects, what would happen if the Canvey terminal went up in flames? The truth is that nobody knows precisely what potential for catastrophe these stores hold.
If there is a problem on land, there is an even greater problem in the crowded waters of the Solent, where only recently a very large tanker ran aground close to where it is proposed to moor this tanker. If such a disaster occurred in the Solent, the outcome would be unthinkable.
New Forest district council health and safety personnel are not impressed with the Health and Safety Executive. Indeed, as they reminded me, these were the very people who advised them that Flixborough was safe.
There is alarm and anger in the Solent area. The Royal Yachting Association believes that
The British Transport Docks Board (Southampton) intend to impose a safety zone around the LPG tanker, exercising powers conferred upon them by the 1847 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act … and the 1939 Southampton Harbour Act …both of which empower the Harbour master to give navigational instructions in the course of day-to-day management for the good order of navigation. We take the view, which view is endorsed by our advisers, that the Harbour master would not be entitled to preclude, even temporarily, vessels from navigating at all in an area extending a thousand metres across.
So where are we? Public opinion seems to have frightened Mobil off, but Mr. Jensen is still pressing ahead. Perhaps as a foreigner he is unaware of the value that we in the Solent area place upon our national heritage. I do not know how people feel about these things in Denmark, but in my view England's heritage comes a long

way ahead of what I can only describe as Danegeld. The problem requires urgent attention from the Government through the British Transport Docks Board. We need more power for local authorities and for the Government.
Finally, I received a letter today from the Lymington Society in my constituency, which says:
It seems inconceivable that the British Transport Docks Board is in a position to foist this situation upon everybody, with minimal consultation.
That is what has happened so far. It seems that it has those powers. We therefore call upon the Government urgently to remedy the situation.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for giving me the opportunity to speak for a minute or two, as the tanker will be just a mile off Cowes and thus closer to my constituency than to any other. East Cowes town hall has never been fuller than it was when more than 200 people voiced their total disapproval of the scheme at a meeting last Friday.
I met Mr. Knud Jensen yesterday, and I support all that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington has said. Mr. Jensen is determined to press ahead with the scheme, which is purely for financial benefit, as he openly and honestly admits.
It is not quite true to say that the docks board is not consulting. It consulted the Isle of Wight county council public protection committee yesterday, and I believe that it met the Hampshire county council last week. My great moan is that it also stands to gain substantially financially from the project. That comes straight from Mr. Gravestock. How can it be judge and jury in its own House? We are all totally opposed to the proposal. We know that the fortunes of the docks board are at a low ebb because of all the strikes in the docks and it would obviously like the proposal to go through, but, it will ruin Cowes.
We are already in trouble, because there has been a threat to take the Admiral's Cup away from us. We have just had an announcement—thank God—from Mike Souter that he is about to invest £4 million to improve facilities at Cowes for crews visiting the premier yachting town in the South and to provide some industrial benefits. That money will not be invested and the island's economy will be desperately affected unless something is done,
Finally, the emergency officer, Colonel Appleton, said that his whole scheme for protecting the island in case of emergency would have to be changed if the proposal were accepted. We do not agree with the Det Norske Veritas adjudication. We could shoot holes in it and it is on its way to the Department of Transport. We are absolutely opposed to the scheme.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I welcome the opportunity to support briefly my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and I am grateful for the time that has been spared for this intervention. This has been an active week for South coast Members of Parliament. I was pleased to be a sponsor of the Bill introduced earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I join my hon. Friends in expressing deep concern about the proposals that have been much publicised in recent weeks.
I represent a constituency near Lymington, one which has five substantial yacht clubs. Thousands of yacht owners take great pleasure in sailing not only in Chichester harbour but in the Solent. Their interests would be substantially curtailed and threatened by the existence of a 60,000-ton, 900-ft. tanker, which will be moored, which will cause a problem for amenities and which will be a substantial safety hazard. There is a serious difficulty, because we must strike a balance between a traditional and well-established right to moor off the British coast—the Conservative Party should not be anxious to interfere too much in that—and the busy traffic in the Solent with its recreational facilities and those provided by the surrounding South coast areas.
I stress that there is great anxiety and that I have received strong representations from the Royal Yachting Association, as well as from many constituents who have yachts and small boats and who are worried that the vessel will be a hazard to their safety and recreation.
I hope that the remaining legal points, which were well enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, can be resolved even if Mobil Oil decide not to go ahead, without recourse to major legislation. In this instance, we should like a reassurance that the pastimes and safety of all our constituents in the surrounding areas will be safeguarded. We seek to represent a proper interest and I hope that the Government will respond reassuringly.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport: (Mr.Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for having raised such an important subject. He feels strongly about certain subjects and he was very hot under the collar tonight. I suspect that he accurately reflects the fact that many of his constituents are very hot under the collar about the proposal. My hon. Friend has won the support of two equally anxious hon. Members for that area, who agree with his feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has sat silently in his place, but I listened when he presented his Ten Minute Bill yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir. J. Eden) has sat silently in the Chamber to give me more time. However, it is obvious that the problem has raised strong feelings throughout the Solent area and the South coast.
Matters of general and national importance were also raised. However, it may be helpful to begin by saying something about the Solent proposal and to set out what I have so far found out. The plan to moor a tanker in the Solent to enable liquid petroleum gas to be unloaded into smaller vessels was conceived by an independent consultant, Mr. Jensen. He took the idea to the British Transport Docks Board—for which we are the sponsoring Department—which, as the harbour authority for the relevant part of the Solent, had to give its approval. He also attracted the interest of the Mobil Oil Company, which has been looking at a number of possible sites for an LPG transhipment facility to serve its European refineries.
Events have moved on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said yesterday and as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington said this evening. Mobil has now decided to withdraw its support

for the scheme. While it is obviously for Mr. Jensen to consider whether he wishes to pursue it with the British Transport Docks Board—I gather from my hon. Friend's speech that he says he will—given Mobil's decision and the local opposition that the scheme has aroused, I would be surprised if another backer appeared.
Going back to the history of the project, both Mobil and the British Transport Docks Board have assured me that when the proposal was first put to them they realised that it would be essential to explore fully the environmental and safety aspects and to consult widely with all interested parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington has suggested that Mr. Jensen, the British Transport Docks Board and Mobil have in some way been behaving less than openly and have been trying to smuggle the proposal through before anyone noticed it. I have made inquiries and I find that discussions started last autumn when the British Transport Docks Board set up a working party to consider the technical aspects of the scheme.
At the request of the working party and of the docks board, a report on the safety aspects was commissioned from the Norwegian organisation, Det Norske Veritas, who are acknowledged experts in this field. The major hazards assessment unit of the Health and Safety Executive then discussed the proposal with BTDB and I gather they agreed Det Norske Veritas' findings in principle. The Health and Safety Executive has said that on that basis it considers that there are no strong reasons on health and safety grounds why the proposed storage and transhipment operation should not proceed, given the stringent safety and navigation requirements envisaged by the board.
Those are the discussions which have taken place since last autummn. They did not involve a great deal of wider consultation although I am assured that some of the local interests were made aware of the proposal during the autumn. On 3 February the British Transport Docks Board, a nationalised industry for which we are the sponsoring Department, began a process of consultation with a wide range of interested bodies, including the local authorities, amenity groups and representatives of sailing clubs. Further consultation meetings have been held.
As soon as we heard about the proposal, the chairman of the British Transport Docks Board readily agreed to the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to be kept in close personal touch with the process of consultation. In fairness to the board, for which we are responsible to the House, it began a wide process of consultation and I suspect, although I am not sure, that it was that which set off the strong, indeed fierce, reaction which has resulted in Mobil withdrawing its backing and in the Ten Minute Bill, the Adjournment debate tonight and all the other representations that are coming in from the area.
I appreciate the wide range of arguments which have been put forward. I know that concern over the proposal extends far beyond the pure safety arguments and that nobody locally is reassured about them. People are also worried about the effects of the proposal on the amenities of the Solent and in particular on sailing, as both the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) emphasised. I can assure them that the British Transport Docks Board is also aware of the concern felt by local yachtsmen and that


it has always been contemplating, even if the proposal went ahead, taking steps to keep to a minimum any interference with sailing in the area.

Mr. Peter Viggers: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I will try to give way, if I can make a little progress.
I have given a narrative of the history but the real problem is the proposal, not certainly dead, as it confronts us, and the wider national implications. I accept that it raises some important general issues. As far as we are aware, this is the first detailed proposition of this kind to be put forward for British waters, although LPG has been transhipped in this way in Dutch, French and Italian waters for some time, without incident so far.
One immediately looks at the law and what restrictions there are on this kind of application going ahead. There are already a number of general statutory requirements with which those responsible for operations of this sort would have to comply. These would include the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1981. Those regulations apply to the handling of dangerous goods and the safety of ships carrying them. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive is preparing draft regulations for the control of dangerous goods in ports and harbours, which would cover ship-to-ship transfers of substances such as LPG.
At present the decision whether such a proposal should be allowed to proceed rests with the local harbour authority making use of its powers, local legislation and byelaws. I must say in defence of those involved that I have no reason to think that they would not exercise controls properly or that the controls would prove inadequate. The Solent issue, about which hon. Members feel so strongly, shows that there are other factors which need to be considered, including the environmental and amenity implications of any proposal of this sort.
Yesterday the House listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport introduce a Bill that seeks to bring floating structures within clear Government control. My right hon. Friend and I and other Ministers listened to my hon. Friend's speech, but it is too early the day afterwards to be sure that such controls are needed and, if they are needed, what form they should take. However, we accept that the issue has to be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington knows that the Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider with his colleagues whether there is any room for improvement in the arrangement for co-ordination between the various Government Departments which have an interest in such proposals. I can assure all those who are interested that because of the direction given by the Prime Minister there can be no question of this issue slipping between departmental responsibilities. Various Departments are involved in differing aspects of the proposal. The Government as a whole, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, propose urgently to examine the present procedure involving proposals to ship LPG and similar dangerous materials offshore. We propose to consider that and the other issues raised by the Solent proposal. We shall decide as quickly as we can whether any improvements need to be made.
We accept that a serious problem may have been thrown up by the proposal. I am not in a position to say

tonight whether I agree that there are gaps in the law, but we shall find out as quickly as possible whether there are. When matters of this sort come forward the Government must produce arrangements that will reassure everybody who is interested that safety, environmental and amenity problems are considered fully, above all safety problems, and that there is a responsible body that has the necessary powers of regulation and control to reassure the public and to satisfy everybody that what is going ahead is industrially desirable and will not cause any great damage.

Mr. Adley: In this instance the British Transport Docks Board happens to have some jurisdiction. There would be even less control a few miles further down the Solent, or elsewhere on the coastline, where there is no statutory harbour authority.

Mr. Clarke: That is a valid observation. Fortunately, in this instance the BTDB is involved as a harbour authority. It has agreed to keep in close personal touch with my right hon. Friend. Until I heard that Mobil had withdrawn as the backer, which meant that we had more time to consider the serious problems that had arisen, I was arranging to have a meeting with Sir Humphrey 13rowne, the chairman of the BTDB. That meeting would have taken place before this debate, had the urgency been sufficient, to discuss how the board would handle the matter.
The Government have no intention of standing aside. We have no intention of ignoring our responsibilities. There will be a quick review to ensure that there are proper legal and other controls.

Mr. Viggers: I am sure that we are all most grateful for the way in which the Government have responded to pressure from all South coast Members. Perhaps the Crown Estate Commissioners have a role.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, they have. They are responsible to a Department other than my own. I hasten to assure my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that this issue will not be allowed to slip between Departments. The Department of Transport is in the lead but other Departments and Ministers are involved.

Mr. Stephen Ross: There are two matters that I must reiterate. I met Mr. Jensen yesterday afternoon and he told me that he is going on with the application. He takes the view that if it is not Mobil (UK) it will be Mobil (USA) or another oil company. Secondly, the British Transport Docks Board should not have jurisdiction and the power to make a decision. It cannot be judge and jury in its own house.

Mr. Clarke: I do not want to prejudge the issue. Mr. Jensen is entitled to pursue a possible investment that is within the law and that may have considerable commercial advantage. It is our duty to ensure that the scheme is subjected to proper regulation. We must be certain that safety is guaranteed. As the law stands, the British Transport Docks Board has the final say. I think that it has behaved responsibly. It was happy to co-operate with my right hon. Friend. Fortunately, we can be sure this evening that there is no question of the project going ahead with no one approving it before there has been time to review the regulatory machinery which should surround a rather worrying proposal of this sort.

Question put and agreed to.
Adjurned accordingly at half past Ten o'clock.